From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3056 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2009 16:16:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 3030 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2009 16:16:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:16:27 +0000 Received: from wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.85]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n98GGPxH001248 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:16:25 -0700 Received: from ywh7 (ywh7.prod.google.com [10.192.8.7]) by wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n98GG58H031284 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:16:23 -0700 Received: by ywh7 with SMTP id 7so4430215ywh.24 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:16:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.51.4 with SMTP id y4mr1463809any.191.1255018583248; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:16:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20091002004954.8966C76B2B@ppluzhnikov.mtv.corp.google.com> References: <20091002004954.8966C76B2B@ppluzhnikov.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ac60eac0910080916i5a2eb49an5f21f3b5c7fb96ef@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][patch] Allow to disassemble line. From: Paul Pluzhnikov To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: ppluzhnikov@google.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > P.S. With 'set disassemble-next-line on', current GDB appears to not work > as described in the manual. In particular, the manual for it says: > > If ON, GDB will display disassembly of the next source line when > execution of the program being debugged stops. > > But what GDB actually does is disassemble from *current instruction* to the > end of line. > > If the reason for stopping is a breakpoint on the given line, then the > end result is the same either way. If the reason for stopping is a crash, > then you get disassembly only from crash point to end of line. > > I think it's reasonable for GDB to behave either way. If it should > disassemble the *entire* current line, this code should be unified with > my patch. If the current behavior is more desirable, the manual should > be fixed instead. Does anybody have an opinion on whether the implementation should be changed to match the manual, or vice versa? Thanks, -- Paul Pluzhnikov