From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28879 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2007 16:56:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 28861 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2007 16:56:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:56:14 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102AF982DE; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:56:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBE498212; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:56:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1HyW8s-0000LC-F6; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:56:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Nigel Stephens , "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: Disassemble branch delay slot instructions automatically Message-ID: <20070613165622.GA1023@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Nigel Stephens , "Maciej W. Rozycki" References: <20070516153242.GA8062@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-06/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:46:55PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > I would like additional opinions on this patch. > > I wouldn't mind either. Well, we didn't get any. I think the patch is pretty much OK, except for the use of TARGET_PRINT_INSN. We're trying to eliminate the gdbarch macros now. I think the best solution would be to add the extra argument to gdb_print_insn; it's only used here and in the TUI. Why did you need the new function that modified an existing disassemble_info, instead of using the existing one? This probably deserves a NEWS entry. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery