From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22239 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2009 19:32:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 21787 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2009 19:31:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,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; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:31:48 +0000 Received: from zps36.corp.google.com (zps36.corp.google.com [172.25.146.36]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n2GJVjsS006505 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:31:45 -0700 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rvbg9.prod.google.com [10.140.83.9]) by zps36.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n2GJViSt027554 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:31:44 -0700 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g9so1982663rvb.2 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:31:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.82.20 with SMTP id j20mr2418931rvl.54.1237231904256; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:31:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] disassemble-next-line From: Doug Evans To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: teawater , tromey@redhat.com, pedro@codesourcery.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00275.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:51:51 +0800 >> From: teawater >> Cc: tromey@redhat.com, dje@google.com, pedro@codesourcery.com, drow@false.org, >> gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >> I had make the patches for code and doc. >> Please help me review it. > > Thanks. Everything is OK, except that you didn't answer my question: > >> >> +If AUTO (which is the default) or the next source line cannot be\n\ >> >> +ascertained, the next instruction will be disassembled instead."), >> > >> > What does it mean ``the next source line cannot be ascertained''? > > I asked that question because I cannot understand the last sentence, > which uses this phrase. Please help me understand what you mean. > The issue here is that not all pc values have an associated source line, and therefore what does one print in this situation? Whatever you suggest for how to communicate this to the user is fine with me (fwiw of course).