From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10154 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2009 16:23:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 10145 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2009 16:23:58 -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; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:23:53 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD621088A; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:25:15 +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 261011086E; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:25:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MvvmQ-0002GW-6a; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:23:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC][patch] Allow to disassemble line. Message-ID: <20091008162350.GA8625@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Pluzhnikov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20091002004954.8966C76B2B@ppluzhnikov.mtv.corp.google.com> <8ac60eac0910080916i5a2eb49an5f21f3b5c7fb96ef@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0910080916i5a2eb49an5f21f3b5c7fb96ef@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 09:16:23AM -0700, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > > > P.S. With 'set disassemble-next-line on', current GDB appears to not work > > as described in the manual. In particular, the manual for it says: > > > > If ON, GDB will display disassembly of the next source line when > > execution of the program being debugged stops. > > > > But what GDB actually does is disassemble from *current instruction* to the > > end of line. > > > > If the reason for stopping is a breakpoint on the given line, then the > > end result is the same either way. If the reason for stopping is a crash, > > then you get disassembly only from crash point to end of line. > > > > I think it's reasonable for GDB to behave either way. If it should > > disassemble the *entire* current line, this code should be unified with > > my patch. If the current behavior is more desirable, the manual should > > be fixed instead. > > Does anybody have an opinion on whether the implementation should be > changed to match the manual, or vice versa? I agree that both are reasonable. I'd mildly prefer changing the behavior of GDB - but only if we can get an additional enhancement that I don't think we have yet: "*" at the PC... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery