From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8679 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2015 17:20:45 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 8010 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jul 2015 17:20:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:20:44 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A7D28B59; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:20:42 -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 7X7hq9xUveT4; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B123285EB; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:20:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A099E4028C; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:20:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rewrite mixed source/assembler disassembly Message-ID: <20150721172040.GM7406@adacore.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00602.txt.bz2 > This is a patch I've wanted to write for a very long time. > The current mixed source/assembler disassembly is not very usable. > In the presence of multiple source files (inlined functions, etc.) > it doesn't print usable output. > In the presence of optimized code, trying to be source centric > just doesn't work IMO. And with no optimization the before/after > should be identical. FWIW, I agree this is a more useful output. > The other change I've made is to remove the blank line between > assembly and the next source line. I'm ambivalent, what do you think? Not sure either say, so going with your call on that one... Thanks for doing this! -- Joel