From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10734 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2009 16:24:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 10726 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2009 16:24:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:24:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7400B2BABB6; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id O53TQZOB+YpQ; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410852BABA3; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:24:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 15B8DF589F; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC][patch] Allow to disassemble line. Message-ID: <20091008162445.GC11440@adacore.com> 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/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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/msg00171.txt.bz2 > Does anybody have an opinion on whether the implementation should be > changed to match the manual, or vice versa? My 2 cents: I *think* the intention of this setting was to display the next few instructions that are about to be executed. That's the way I personally would like this feature to work as I'd be able to identify immediately which instruction is next. So my vote goes towards updating the manual to match the current implementation. -- Joel