From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9620 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2009 21:25:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 9607 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2009 21:25:19 -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) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:25:12 +0000 Received: from wpaz29.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz29.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.93]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n24LP7rd003661 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 21:25:07 GMT Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rvfb17.prod.google.com [10.140.179.17]) by wpaz29.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n24LP5Wm032428 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:25:06 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so3470321rvf.28 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:25:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.96.19 with SMTP id y19mr160424rvl.201.1236201905357; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:25:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <200903041932.04620.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <20090304192647.GA21091@caradoc.them.org> <200903041932.04620.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:25:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What about add a interface to output the assembly codes follow inferior execution From: Doug Evans To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Daniel Jacobowitz , Eli Zaretskii , teawater@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-System-Of-Record: true 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/msg00044.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Wednesday 04 March 2009 19:26:47, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> (Another thing that would be useful, perhaps, is a modifier to 'x/i' to >> say "a line's worth of instructions". But I think we'd have a lot of >> trouble finding a non-ambiguous command for that.) >> > > I was thinking the same, while noticing that the > "disassemble" command also doesn't allow a line number or line > number range. > > Did I mention already that with the TUI one can see disassembly > and source code at the same time easily ? :-) Ya, extending the disassemble command makes sense to me.