From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21161 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2002 11:22:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20973 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 11:22:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freya.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.14) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 11:22:37 -0000 Received: from zaretsky (diup-216-125.inter.net.il [213.8.216.125]) by freya.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id BHP56496; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:22:24 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 03:22:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: dje@transmeta.com Message-Id: <6137-Fri05Apr2002141806+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200204022154.NAA10074@casey.transmeta.com> (message from Doug Evans on Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:54:47 -0800) Subject: Re: STOPPED_BY_WATCHPOINT peculiarity Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200204022154.NAA10074@casey.transmeta.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 13:54:47 -0800 > From: Doug Evans > > /* It may be possible to simply continue after a watchpoint. */ > if (HAVE_CONTINUABLE_WATCHPOINT) > STOPPED_BY_WATCHPOINT (ecs->ws); > > STOPPED_BY_WATCHPOINT is a predicate. > Therefore at first glance this code is pointless. Who said predicates cannot have side effects? Anyway, this code is there in GDB for as long as I can remember. Presumably, it's a survivor from the days when watchpoints were added to GDB for Sparclet or some such. I don't mind the extra comment, though. My only request is to change the wording of the comment so that the kind of use in i386-nat.c is an example of how it could be used, not the original purpose of this code (which is unknown to me). IMHO, the comment should serve as a warning against the temptation of removing it, or otherwise rewriting it in ways that could break ecisting usage. Thanks.