From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3304 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2003 15:19:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3297 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 15:19:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2003 15:19:47 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCBF2B11; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:19:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E80738D.6050405@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 15:19:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH ARM add new set/show arm commands References: <200303251222.h2PCMqF08079@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00487.txt.bz2 >> > Are you suggesting I should change the option name to "set arm >> > disassembler"? If so, I've no problem with that. If not, what are you > >> >> Yes, just "set arm disassembler". Er, actually, is "set arm >> disassembler-options" better? Either name is more in line with the >> existing objdump --disassembler-options option. > > > I'm not entirely happy with the idea of forcing this method to be > identical to the objdump machinery. In particular, the current objdump > flags available to gdb are all prefixed by reg-names- and in gdb this is > not accepted by gdb. > > Further, there is another option in the arm disassembler-options command > that is not available to gdb -- force-thumb. Something like this is > needed for gdb, but not at this level. For gdb a proper flag that is > visible to the rest of the debugger, not just the assembler is needed. > Further, that flag needs to be a 3-state one, ARM, Thumb and auto. > Forcing the state will affect things like breakpoint insertion etc. > > I think I'd rather keep the option as "set arm disassembler" to make these > distinctions clear. Thoughts? M'kay. Can you add a note to that effect to the bug report (the i386 needs a similar treatment). Andrew