From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-26647-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 13662 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2006 04:10:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 13654 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2006 04:10:18 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:10:15 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-154-208.inter.net.il [80.230.154.208]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id EZG24333 (AUTH halo1); 	Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:10:10 +0200 (IST)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:10:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u8xj7wu3h.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>
CC: gdb@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <453BF6F2.5050202@adacore.com> (message from Robert Dewar on Sun, 	22 Oct 2006 18:55:46 -0400)
Subject: Re: breakpoint for accessing memory location
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <4537DBC6.1030807@hccnet.nl> <20061019201214.GA32332@nevyn.them.org> <4537DEDC.5000008@hccnet.nl> <u4ptzqz0b.fsf@gnu.org> <453A3758.5090602@wichita.edu> <ufydhpu0o.fsf@gnu.org> <20061021155125.GA9177@nevyn.them.org> <uejt1pdhp.fsf@gnu.org> <20061021223200.GA21012@nevyn.them.org> <u8xj9oufd.fsf@gnu.org> <20061022042230.GA28995@nevyn.them.org> <453B61AD.7030605@adacore.com> <uejt0vvsl.fsf@gnu.org> <453BF542.7000603@adacore.com> <uac3ovu9n.fsf@gnu.org> <453BF6F2.5050202@adacore.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:55:46 -0400
> From: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>
> CC:  rodney.bates@wichita.edu,  gdb@sourceware.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > The general rule is that watching a constant expression is silly,
> > since its value never changes and thus the watchpoint will never
> > break.  Thus, it's probably not what the user wanted, and a warning
> > would be a Good Thing, IMO.
> 
> Right, but of course it is recursively undecidable whether an
> expression is constant, so you don't really mean what you say.

No, I did mean what I said.  You asked about a principle, not about
the feasibility of its application.  Or at least that's what I thought
you were asking.