From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id t7aAEYOW9GHHFAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:21:07 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 33F7D1F0E7; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:21:07 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.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 2C4231EA69 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664F83899016 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 01:21:02 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 664F83899016 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1643419262; bh=89KbJlHjNqQB5hc5UR4iHoIqk/BtoZJN105ZcPC4pp8=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=sAS2vDZ6HCnSkN/2HCRLFzuWQYuKdeij3Vu55zqP+hn0K+s3LVrxHOqySTU7eYxOv YW6+lBUnPV0HlD+87sVfGDfzn/YZGUxaejXQQ59EJzslLSzUarVL5/8pMnewh4FNPY ThFuXR9RtEfFopY6YjwCNQrRwV8BNUq4UqsV/NZo= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43EA03858D28 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 01:20:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 43EA03858D28 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 20T1KXXc016226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:20:38 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 20T1KXXc016226 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E02FF1EA69; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:20:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:20:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb/tui/disassembly view: make symbol name appear on a line of its own Content-Language: en-US To: Andrew Burgess References: <20220124192811.1530670-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20220128224140.GF425591@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20220128224140.GF425591@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Sat, 29 Jan 2022 01:20:33 +0000 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: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Vasili Burdo , Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > This default `false` concerned my initially. The only times we call > tui_disassemble is either because we want to redraw the screen > contents, or we want to know what _would_ be drawn to the screen > if/when we do the redraw. > > Only, now, we draw the screen differently for these two cases, so, my > thinking goes, surely there's going to be some edge case where we ask, > what address would be on the screen if .... and we'll get the wrong > answer back. > > I played with this for a while, but couldn't get anything obvious to > break - I suspect that if there are bugs, they are going to be super > subtle, which addresses appear on the screen doesn't change much, > usually just one instruction different I think, so maybe it doesn't > matter. > > And given I couldn't spot anything, maybe I'm over thinking this, and > there is no problem... > > I guess my question is, did you already consider this already? Is > there a reason why having two strategies is known to be OK? No, I haven't considered this, it is a good question. I really don't know the TUI code well (if at all), so my thinking was that if the TUI experts say it's ok, it's because it's ok :). But indeed, it would be good to understand exactly what happens here. I'll git a little bit. Vasili, if you happen to know why we have these two behaviors (for_ui and !for_ui), feel free to answer. Simon