From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27148 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2009 17:34:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 27140 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2009 17:34:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:34:10 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79A510967; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:34:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BFA10965; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:34:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lurx1-0003Wx-7v; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:34:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] print error message if (auto) disassembly failed Message-ID: <20090417173407.GC13377@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20090416173918.GP7557@adacore.com> <834owolc51.fsf@gnu.org> <20090416180146.GH7585@adacore.com> <831vrslb0f.fsf@gnu.org> <20090416190654.GJ7585@adacore.com> <83vdp4jn6j.fsf@gnu.org> <20090416235735.GO7585@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090416235735.GO7585@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00453.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:57:35PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 2009-04-17 Joel Brobecker > > * stack.c (do_gdb_disassembly): Print an error message if an error > was thrown while trying to perform the disassembly. > > I'm currently testing this patch on x86_64-linux, but I don't really > expect any problem. My two cents: this should really match whatever x/i does. Is that code now shared, or does it still have the old (IMO perfectly fine) error message? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery