From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2627 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2013 16:38:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 2389 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2013 16:38:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:38:36 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MIH0040077NQ400@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:38:35 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MIH004LP7KAMI30@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:38:34 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:38:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC - Python Scripting] New method gdb.Architecture.disassemble In-reply-to: To: Siva Chandra Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, tromey@redhat.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83k3q4p8bu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20753.38272.55066.651097@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <87txphmdt3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87r4kkks5g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20763.64197.459891.627211@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <20765.55532.700460.792597@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <83a9r4sl04.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00504.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:36:00 -0800 > From: Siva Chandra > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com, tromey@redhat.com > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> +@defun Architecture.disassemble (@var{start_pc} @r{[}, @var{end_pc} @r{[}, @var{count}@r{]]}) > >> +Return a list of at most @var{count} disassembled instructions > >> +whose start address falls in the closed memory address interval from > >> +@var{start_pc} to @var{end_pc}. If @var{end_pc} is not specified, but > >> +@var{count} is specified, then @var{count} number of instructions > >> +starting from the address @var{start_pc} are returned. If @var{count} > >> +is not specified but @var{end_pc} is specified, then all instructions > >> +whose start address falls in the closed memory address interval from > >> +@var{start_pc} to @var{end_pc} are returned. If neither @var{end_pc} > >> +nor @var{count} are specified, then a single instruction at > >> +@var{start_pc} is returned. > > > > The description of the optional arguments makes sense, but the @defun > > line is in contradiction with the description, because it says that > > one can specify all 3 arguments. IOW, there should be a '|' somewhere > > to signal that either end_pc or count, but not both, could be used. > > > > One can specify all three arguments. Does the description anywhere > indicate otherwise? The text does not describe that possibility at all, so I assumed that it cannot happen.