From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28498 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2003 12:24:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28484 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 12:24:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 12:24:01 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id MAA03224; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:23:54 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma001906; Tue, 25 Mar 03 12:22:53 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01465; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:22:52 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h2PCMqF08079; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:22:52 GMT Message-Id: <200303251222.h2PCMqF08079@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Andrew Cagney cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. Subject: Re: PATCH ARM add new set/show arm commands In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:10:43 EST." <3E7F3C13.5080708@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:24:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00485.txt.bz2 > > Are you suggesting I should change the option name to "set arm > > disassembler"? If so, I've no problem with that. If not, what are you > > Yes, just "set arm disassembler". Er, actually, is "set arm > disassembler-options" better? Either name is more in line with the > existing objdump --disassembler-options option. I'm not entirely happy with the idea of forcing this method to be identical to the objdump machinery. In particular, the current objdump flags available to gdb are all prefixed by reg-names- and in gdb this is not accepted by gdb. Further, there is another option in the arm disassembler-options command that is not available to gdb -- force-thumb. Something like this is needed for gdb, but not at this level. For gdb a proper flag that is visible to the rest of the debugger, not just the assembler is needed. Further, that flag needs to be a 3-state one, ARM, Thumb and auto. Forcing the state will affect things like breakpoint insertion etc. I think I'd rather keep the option as "set arm disassembler" to make these distinctions clear. Thoughts? R.