From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94908 invoked by alias); 21 May 2015 11:34:43 -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 94298 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2015 11:34:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:34:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29C802932F1; Thu, 21 May 2015 11:34:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t4LBYdBq022306; Thu, 21 May 2015 07:34:39 -0400 Message-ID: <555DC2CF.80909@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 11:34:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Burgess CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gdb: Remove register class specific layout names. References: <90740f3ef5bac701c1653d469fcc9d34fb113517.1432163460.git.andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <555D9A69.3070409@redhat.com> <20150521113311.GI2880@embecosm.com> In-Reply-To: <20150521113311.GI2880@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00534.txt.bz2 On 05/21/2015 12:33 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > * Pedro Alves [2015-05-21 09:42:17 +0100]: > >> On 05/21/2015 12:17 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: >>> >>> Second there is already the command 'tui reg GROUP' command to set the >>> displayed register set to GROUP, so making the layout command also >>> control the register set feels like unnecessary overloading of the >>> layout command. >> >> (A tangent: I was playing with this a bit now, and found it quite odd >> that there's a "tui reg next" command here, but >> no "tui reg previous"...) > > Indeed, this is on my list of things to look at next (unless you're > already fixing it). I'm not fixing it. > You'll also notice, at least on x86-64 that if you use 'tui reg next' > you get access to more register sets that are offered in the > tab-completion mechanism. This too is something I plan to address in > the next series. Sounds all great, thanks! -- Pedro Alves