From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34C763858CDA for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 19:42:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 34C763858CDA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tromey.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tromey.com Received: from cmgw14.mail.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.0.90.129]) by progateway4.mail.pro1.eigbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF311004353A for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 19:42:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id gtERoyjr6d4K3gtERowLiD; Fri, 07 Oct 2022 19:42:03 +0000 X-Authority-Reason: nr=8 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=ZYrYiuZA c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6340810b a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:117 a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:17 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=Qawa6l4ZSaYA:10:nop_rcvd_month_year a=Qbun_eYptAEA:10:endurance_base64_authed_username_1 a=olzO31D_AknfMRPorWoA:9 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References :Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=09ILWT44ZtlCnam/NVhUauerWVleWmBPnDU2ReXH7Fs=; b=ennh6OOiPJIJD+F2WCfjibGSem LnFt05/7TKH+UuS+PO+sLbztYcbu3+pu5Qr1BwV/7N4xRr71fVri9eIF9N8eeyuks7ChWgVCXE6/N HWn9vLWJ2lOdE5nDthZP75vK+; Received: from 71-211-160-49.hlrn.qwest.net ([71.211.160.49]:56628 helo=murgatroyd) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1ogtEQ-000aKt-H2; Fri, 07 Oct 2022 13:42:02 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: Tom de Vries , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC][gdb/cli] Add convenience vars _wp_old_val and _wp_val References: <20220930091614.GA30107@delia.home> <0fd34b60-1eba-c7cf-3792-13cc2c2b1d9b@palves.net> X-Attribution: Tom Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 13:41:57 -0600 In-Reply-To: <0fd34b60-1eba-c7cf-3792-13cc2c2b1d9b@palves.net> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:37:40 +0100") Message-ID: <87o7uns9oa.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5379.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - sourceware.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tromey.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 71.211.160.49 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1ogtEQ-000aKt-H2 X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: 71-211-160-49.hlrn.qwest.net (murgatroyd) [71.211.160.49]:56628 X-Source-Auth: tom+tromey.com X-Email-Count: 14 X-Source-Cap: ZWx5bnJvYmk7ZWx5bnJvYmk7Ym94NTM3OS5ibHVlaG9zdC5jb20= X-Local-Domain: yes X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3022.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 19:42:15 -0000 Pedro> It can't be safely used in regular CLI after the watchpoint hit is process, though, Pedro> given another watchpoint may trigger meanwhile. I mean, say, in non-stop, you do: FWIW gdb probably already has this problem with some other convenience variables, like $_exitcode, $_exception, $_probe_*, ... So, maybe adding one more isn't so bad. Or maybe now is when we want to think of a general solution. I'm not sure this works though: Pedro> A way to make this safer would be to make it a convenience function instead, that Pedro> takes as argument the number of the watchpoint, like: ... because it seems to me that the same watchpoint can be hit any number of times. Tom