From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-62997-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7988 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2009 21:37:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 7979 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2009 21:37:23 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:37:18 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout7.012.net.il by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KI700100QEBOB00@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:36:37 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.34.97]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KI700M8KQP04L60@i-mtaout7.012.net.il>; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:36:37 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:37:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA] print error message if (auto) disassembly failed
In-reply-to: <20090416190654.GJ7585@adacore.com>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83vdp4jn6j.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20090416173918.GP7557@adacore.com> <834owolc51.fsf@gnu.org> <20090416180146.GH7585@adacore.com> <831vrslb0f.fsf@gnu.org> <20090416190654.GJ7585@adacore.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00391.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:06:54 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > But an invalid address can sometimes (accidentally) be readable,
> > right?  What will we print then?
> 
> It looks like this "(bad)" is printed by opcode, not GDB.
> So we should get your "(bad)" output if the address is valid
> but points to an invalid instruction.

OK, but your suggested message text is too long, I think.  Something
shorter, like "(address unreadable)" is better, IMO.