From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12176 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2009 22:20:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 12167 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2009 22:20:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:20:37 +0000 Received: (qmail 28384 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2009 22:20:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 Mar 2009 22:20:35 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: What about add a interface to output the assembly codes follow inferior execution Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:20:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Doug Evans , drow@false.org, teawater@gmail.com References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903042220.38093.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00047.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 04 March 2009 22:14:32, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:25:05 -0800 > > From: Doug Evans > > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Daniel Jacobowitz , Eli Zaretskii , teawater@gmail.com > > > > Ya, extending the disassemble command makes sense to me. > > I don't see how it can make sense that the same command does both > one-time disassembly and disassemble the next source line each time > GDB stops. It's like "print" and "display" -- it's not an accident we > have 2 different commands there. Certainly. I was just pointing out that the "disassembly" command could have said option. I had a hook-stop in mind --- if it had such an option already, the user could could just set a hook-stop to show the disassembly of the current source line. > If anything, extending "display" with yet another format specifier, or > maybe a qualifier for /i, would make much more sense to me. Of course, I don't disagree. Daniel surely mentioned "x/i", because "display" takes the exact same formats as the "x" command does. -- Pedro Alves