From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id Qk2iILS8wGCpAgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:05:56 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 762B21F163; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 09:05:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 5BEDF1E813 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 09:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F20D3982C22 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 13:05:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0F20D3982C22 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1623243955; bh=0ZmIqPfjLyE0CKNIjE/7wvfRP7PB8IJBPPMHLWaKDzw=; h=Date:To:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=KphObekwxpKSZkifTiSGKfmFZif1YoBuOHdCVXNRsS0pT0/XqSdFGbOj9TK2NMg1I wqoV0OVXP6ER1tm9Rja/9KBH9xeG34qJeK5GH7b3sSaNegK0Qk0b960dbnlyFyM1xK ITd16xnHJHLZIPB6x+yzq3kkVkDtpeus9iphcKQo= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E4CB395B457 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 13:05:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0E4CB395B457 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42344) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqxtm-0006Ws-L8; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:05:34 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2083 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqxtm-0006Yz-97; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:05:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 16:05:18 +0300 Message-Id: <83zgvzcho1.fsf@gnu.org> To: Vasili Burdo In-Reply-To: (message from Vasili Burdo on Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:56:38 +0300) Subject: Re: [PATCH] TUI disassembly window improvemenmt References: <831r9bdxpj.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Vasili Burdo > Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:56:38 +0300 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Shouldn't this be optional behavior? Not everyone disassembles only > > C++ code. > This patch does not limit disassembly view in any way. > - The current function name moved from disassembly line to window header > - Offset from function start still present in disassembly line > - Function start is marked by function name label. But AFAIU only the current function's name is visible; if some other function is referenced in the disassembly, it will now be invisible, right? IOW, you seem to assume that any function names mentioned in the disassembly are always the name of the current function, but is that an assumption that is always correct?