From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28423 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2009 17:29:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 28409 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2009 17:29:37 -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 17:29:29 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCCA1088A; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:30:51 +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 8A22A1086E; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:30:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mvwnu-0003uE-Kc; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:29:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC][patch] Allow to disassemble line. Message-ID: <20091008172926.GA14975@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Pluzhnikov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20091002004954.8966C76B2B@ppluzhnikov.mtv.corp.google.com> <8ac60eac0910080916i5a2eb49an5f21f3b5c7fb96ef@mail.gmail.com> <20091008162350.GA8625@caradoc.them.org> <8ac60eac0910080952p46f15693x6ed339473db0139d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0910080952p46f15693x6ed339473db0139d@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/msg00176.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 09:52:35AM -0700, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > If 'set disassemble-next-line on' worked as Daniel proposed, that would > significantly reduce the need for 'disas/l', I think. For my two cents, I'd rather have both... consider x/i $pc and display/i $pc. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery