From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22553 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2009 19:28:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 22544 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2009 19:28:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:28:29 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DD510A30; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:28:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE47104DE; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:28:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LewlW-0005ZR-FH; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:28:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Antony KING Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [GDB 6.8] Problem using watchpoints with compound objects Message-ID: <20090304192826.GB21091@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Antony KING , gdb@sourceware.org References: <49AD6B30.2010102@st.com> <20090303203309.GA2672@caradoc.them.org> <49AD9E8A.3020608@st.com> <20090303214606.GA9404@caradoc.them.org> <49AED46D.7010701@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49AED46D.7010701@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 07:20:13PM +0000, Antony KING wrote: > However my original query relating to arrays is still valid. If I > perform the same test with "a" defined as an array (as in my original > email) then the effect of coerce_array() in value_equal() remains; the > watchpoint is reported by the H/W but value_equal() will always report > TRUE (since it compares the address of the array and not its contents) > and hence GDB erroneously ignores the watchpoint as unchanged. Therefore > I still think the change to watchpoint_check() is still valid. If you > concur I will submit a patch for this. I think I agree, but honestly I'm too confused to be sure; it does not help that you're working against GDB 6.8 and this code has changed in HEAD. I suggest posting the patch, but including a testcase so that the change in behavior is realy obvious. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery