From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98654 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2016 18:10:33 -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 98639 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jan 2016 18:10:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*UA:FreeBSD, HX-Greylist:EST, HX-Greylist:0500, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:7Bit X-HELO: bigwig.baldwin.cx Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (HELO bigwig.baldwin.cx) (96.47.65.170) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:10:31 +0000 Received: from ralph.baldwin.cx (c-73-231-226-104.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.226.104]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B430B96C; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:10:28 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Pedro Alves , Toshihito Kikuchi Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new format letter to dump instructions backward Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <2015581.ugHgmqoO9R@ralph.baldwin.cx> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (FreeBSD/10.2-STABLE; KDE/4.14.3; amd64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <56A609E7.6050903@redhat.com> References: <1827952218.466587.1453670934999.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1827952218.466587.1453670934999.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <56A609E7.6050903@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00629.txt.bz2 On Monday, January 25, 2016 11:41:27 AM Pedro Alves wrote: > On 01/24/2016 09:28 PM, Toshihito Kikuchi wrote: > Seems to me that some other UI would be better. E.g.,: > > #1 - a different switch, like "x -back /i " ? > > #2 - a different command, like "bx" ? > > #3 - negative repeat counts ? > > (gdb) x /4i // next 4 instructions > (gdb) x /-4i // previous 4 instructions > > (gdb) x /4bx // next 4 bytes, in hex > (gdb) x /-4bx // previous 4 bytes, in hex > > > Added #1 just for completeness, I don't find it very convenient. > > #3 feels natural to me. What do you (and others) think? I think #3 is the most natural as well. I also think this is a very useful feature. -- John Baldwin