Re: What about add a interface to output the assembly codes follow inferior execution

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:15:30 -0800
>> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, drow@false.org, gdb@sourceware.org
>>
>> Having another word for "disassembly" seems clumsy though. ["apropos
>> opcodes" doesn't print anything today]
>
> "apropos" searches the first lines of the doc strings, not only the
> command names.  So if we document the new commands like this:
>
>  show-opcodes -- display disassembly of next line with each prompt
>
> "apropos disassembly" will find that as well.  Does that solve your
> problem with the name I suggested?

To be honest it doesn't.
The point about apropos wasn't that "apropos disassembly" wouldn't
find show-opcodes, but rather to point out that we don't use "opcodes"
at all.  It doesn't even appear in gdb.texinfo.  Why not use
"disassemble" when disassemble is what we mean?

[I'd also hate to see a user type "apropos show" while trying to find
show-opcodes.  1/2 :-)]

>
>> Plus to a new user the intent of the option is a bit vague.
>> "disassemble-next-line" ? [that has a lot to type to become
>> unambiguous
>
> Right, I thought about something that begins with "disassemble", but
> didn't want to shoot our completion habits in the foot, since
> currently typing just "disas TAB" is all I need to get disassembly.
>

But users type disas a lot.   I wouldn't expect them to type `set
disassemble-next-line foo' very much at all.