From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20049 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2009 22:31:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 20039 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2009 22:31:11 -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 22:31:04 +0000 Received: from wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.65]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n24MV0X2004135 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 22:31:00 GMT Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rvfc5.prod.google.com [10.140.180.5]) by wpaz1.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n24MUhWC020404 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:30:58 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c5so3188317rvf.48 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:30:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.41.12 with SMTP id t12mr183536rvj.289.1236205858452; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:30:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20090304192647.GA21091@caradoc.them.org> <200903041932.04620.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: What about add a interface to output the assembly codes follow inferior execution From: Doug Evans To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org, drow@false.org, 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/msg00048.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:14 PM, 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. I was not suggesting extending the disassemble command to handle the specifying of source lines as a way to address the issue being addressed by "set disassemble-next-line|show-opcodes foo". [One could use the stop hook, but that gets tricky if one wants to start doing multiple things in the stop hook.] I was merely saying that extending the disassemble command to handle source lines is A Good Thing. > > If anything, extending "display" with yet another format specifier, or > maybe a qualifier for /i, would make much more sense to me. > That would be another way to go instead of disassemble-next-line|show-opcodes, yes.