From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12128 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2007 15:06:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 12114 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2007 15:05:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:05:47 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEF01481B1 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:59:33 -0200 (BrDT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l16F5f4n1519738 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:05:41 -0200 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l16F4bJK019076 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:04:37 -0200 Received: from dyn531819.br.ibm.com (dyn531819.br.ibm.com [9.18.238.86]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l16F4bkX019073 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:04:37 -0200 Subject: Re: (not) disassembling power[456] instructions in GDB From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: gdb-patches In-Reply-To: <1170289373.26944.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1170289373.26944.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:06:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1170774333.14076.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 Hi folks, On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 22:22 -0200, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > The attached patch makes GDB always use the -Many option of the > disassembler, which will make it disassemble every instruction it > understands. > Comments? Can this patch be applied? Any news on this? If there is a better way to approach this problem I could implement it, but since I'm rather new to GDB hacking, I need some input... :-) -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center