Re: [RFC][patch] Allow to disassemble line.

[Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com>]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:11:27 -0700
>> From: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
>>
>> (top) set disassemble-next-line on
>> (top) ni
>> 0x000000000054d225      510           val = func (func_args);
>>   0x000000000054d221 <catch_errors+69>:  48 8b 7d d0    mov    -0x30(%rbp),%rdi
>> * 0x000000000054d225 <catch_errors+73>:  48 8b 45 d8    mov    -0x28(%rbp),%rax
>>   0x000000000054d229 <catch_errors+77>:  ff d0  callq  *%rax
>>   0x000000000054d22b <catch_errors+79>:  89 45 fc       mov    %eax,-0x4(%rbp)
>> (top) ni
>> 0x000000000054d229      510           val = func (func_args);
>>   0x000000000054d221 <catch_errors+69>:  48 8b 7d d0    mov    -0x30(%rbp),%rdi
>>   0x000000000054d225 <catch_errors+73>:  48 8b 45 d8    mov    -0x28(%rbp),%rax
>> * 0x000000000054d229 <catch_errors+77>:  ff d0  callq  *%rax
>>   0x000000000054d22b <catch_errors+79>:  89 45 fc       mov    %eax,-0x4(%rbp)
>
> The asterisk in both cases is on the same mnemonics, "callq  *%rax".

It's the "leading asterisk" that is the marker here, and it moves from
0x000000000054d225 to 0x000000000054d229.

Instruction itself (which is "callq  *%rax") is constant, just like it
should be.

Or did I misunderstand your question?

Thanks,
-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov