Hi guys,

I make a new patch according to your comments.
If you think it's OK. I will make the patch for doc.

Thanks,
Hui

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:16, teawater <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 23:26, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "teawater" == teawater  <teawater@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> teawater> This is the patch for the function to output assembly codes
>> teawater> for next line.
>>
>> teawater> +/* If ON, GDB will output the assembly codes of next line.
>> teawater> +   If OFF, GDB will not do it.
>> teawater> +   doesn't support it, GDB will instead use the traditional
>>
>> I think this third line should be removed.
>
> OK. I will remove it.
>
>>
>> teawater> +/* Show assembly codes; stub for catch_errors.  */
>> teawater> +
>> teawater> +struct gdb_disassembly_stub_args
>> teawater> +{
>> teawater> +  int how_many;
>> teawater> +  CORE_ADDR low;
>> teawater> +  CORE_ADDR high;
>> teawater> +};
>> teawater> +
>> teawater> +static int
>> teawater> +gdb_disassembly_stub (void *args)
>> teawater> +{
>> teawater> +  struct gdb_disassembly_stub_args *p = args;
>> teawater> +  gdb_disassembly (uiout, 0, 0, 0, p->how_many, p->low, p->high);
>> teawater> +  return 0;
>>
>> IMO, in this case it would be shorter, and clearer, to use TRY_CATCH
>> at the call site rather than catch_errors.  What do you think?
>
> OK.  I will change it to TRY_CATCH.
>
>>
>> teawater> +  /* If disassemble-next-line is set to auto or on and doesn't have
>> teawater> +     line message, output current instructions.  */
>>
>> "a line message"
>>
>> teawater> +      /* If disassemble-next-line is set to on and there is line
>> teawater> +         messages, output assembly codes for next line.  */
>>
>> "there are line messages"
>
> I will change it.
>
>>
>> teawater> +  add_setshow_enum_cmd ("disassemble-next-line", class_run,
>> teawater> +                     disassemble_next_line_enum,
>> teawater> +                     &disassemble_next_line, _("\
>> teawater> +Set debugger's willingness to use disassemble-next-line."), _("\
>>
>> This text seems circular.
>> Instead it should briefly describe what the option does.
>>
>> teawater> +Show debugger's willingness to use disassemble-next-line."), _("\
>> teawater> +If on, gdb will output the assembly codes of next line.\n\
>>
>> This also reads strangely, but I don't have a suggestion for what it
>> ought to say.  I think it should at least say when the assembly will
>> be displayed.  "assembly codes" in particular sounds odd to me.
>
> I think Doug's idea is better:
> If ON, GDB will disassemble the next source line when execution stops.
> If the next source line cannot be ascertained, the next instruction
> will be disassembled instead.
>
>>
>> teawater> +If auto (which is the default), gdb will output a assembly code\n\
>> teawater> +at current address if there is not line message."),
>>
>> "at the current address"
>
> I will change it.
>
>>
>> The line message bit could use rewording as well; at least s/not/no/.
>>
>
> About line message.
> struct symtab_and_line
> {
>  struct symtab *symtab;
>  struct obj_section *section;
>  /* Line number.  Line numbers start at 1 and proceed through symtab->nlines.
>     0 is never a valid line number; it is used to indicate that line number
>     information is not available.  */
>  int line;
>
>  CORE_ADDR pc;
>  CORE_ADDR end;
>  int explicit_pc;
>  int explicit_line;
> };
> It don't have comment name.
> What about change it to "line debug message"?
>
>
> Thanks for your help.
> Hui
>