From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id nqIBF3XPAmIOaAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 08 Feb 2022 15:15:49 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4B07A1F3C6; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 15:15:49 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6A6A1EE1A for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 15:15:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A920D3857C44 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 20:15:47 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A920D3857C44 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1644351347; bh=Bya0BhiUrugy+c3LqF36CxwU+DfuHUGayI2Bl1MiMrE=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=SHK0iwMt26nBnM1VlGEFDUm0ZRdUicV3NSqBea+UHJD9ZLOYG5aUToG2PgbH+KGG7 DcSbZVKTRhdQ352bfW+QVqeAJjjGu6z35WGoHVQR5QJlJqp2sUMrYJX5E5JFtBd4PJ Lk3yugj1oNkwRfUx+f5JpyyzKR5HUt1dNjlArcE0= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41F3C3858D1E for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 20:15:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 41F3C3858D1E Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 218KFLMi027925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Feb 2022 15:15:26 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 218KFLMi027925 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4833D1EE1A; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 15:15:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3ba3c0f8-5afe-ba0b-ba39-ee8aa1a5b8c9@polymtl.ca> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 15:15:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: change "maint info jit" to print jit_code_entry::symfile_addr value Content-Language: en-US To: Jan Vrany , Andrew Burgess References: <20220207113923.2366281-1-jan.vrany@labware.com> <20220208154937.GF2706@redhat.com> <08201dca-f8e2-3c2e-b5d3-9bb45e105d75@polymtl.ca> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Tue, 8 Feb 2022 20:15:21 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2022-02-08 14:32, Jan Vrany wrote: > On Tue, 2022-02-08 at 14:16 -0500, Simon Marchi wrote: >> >> On 2022-02-08 10:49, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote: >>> Jan, >>> >>> Thanks for this patch. While reviewing this, I wondered about using >>> ui_out's table mechanism to format the output, rather than just >>> printing the addresses. >>> >>> Additionally, while reminding myself about how the jit stuff works, I >>> thought, maybe we should keep the jit_code_entry address in the 'maint >>> info jit' output - after all, given a jit_code_entry, we can, in >>> theory, figure out the symfile address, but we can't (easily) go from >>> a symfile address back to a jit_code_entry, right? >> >> Why not print both? > > I believe this is what Andrew's patch does. > >>> Anyway, while I ended up with the patch below. What do you think >>> about this instead? > > Andrew, I'm happy with it, of course. Ah, I'm happy with it too then :). Simon