This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi guys, I make a new patch according to your comments. If you think it's OK. I will make the patch for doc. Thanks, Hui On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:16, teawater <teawater@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys, > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 23:26, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "teawater" == teawater ?<teawater@gmail.com> writes: >> >> teawater> This is the patch for the function to output assembly codes >> teawater> for next line. >> >> teawater> +/* If ON, GDB will output the assembly codes of next line. >> teawater> + ? If OFF, GDB will not do it. >> teawater> + ? doesn't support it, GDB will instead use the traditional >> >> I think this third line should be removed. > > OK. I will remove it. > >> >> teawater> +/* Show assembly codes; stub for catch_errors. ?*/ >> teawater> + >> teawater> +struct gdb_disassembly_stub_args >> teawater> +{ >> teawater> + ?int how_many; >> teawater> + ?CORE_ADDR low; >> teawater> + ?CORE_ADDR high; >> teawater> +}; >> teawater> + >> teawater> +static int >> teawater> +gdb_disassembly_stub (void *args) >> teawater> +{ >> teawater> + ?struct gdb_disassembly_stub_args *p = args; >> teawater> + ?gdb_disassembly (uiout, 0, 0, 0, p->how_many, p->low, p->high); >> teawater> + ?return 0; >> >> IMO, in this case it would be shorter, and clearer, to use TRY_CATCH >> at the call site rather than catch_errors. ?What do you think? > > OK. ?I will change it to TRY_CATCH. > >> >> teawater> + ?/* If disassemble-next-line is set to auto or on and doesn't have >> teawater> + ? ? line message, output current instructions. ?*/ >> >> "a line message" >> >> teawater> + ? ? ?/* If disassemble-next-line is set to on and there is line >> teawater> + ? ? ? ? messages, output assembly codes for next line. ?*/ >> >> "there are line messages" > > I will change it. > >> >> teawater> + ?add_setshow_enum_cmd ("disassemble-next-line", class_run, >> teawater> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? disassemble_next_line_enum, >> teawater> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? &disassemble_next_line, _("\ >> teawater> +Set debugger's willingness to use disassemble-next-line."), _("\ >> >> This text seems circular. >> Instead it should briefly describe what the option does. >> >> teawater> +Show debugger's willingness to use disassemble-next-line."), _("\ >> teawater> +If on, gdb will output the assembly codes of next line.\n\ >> >> This also reads strangely, but I don't have a suggestion for what it >> ought to say. ?I think it should at least say when the assembly will >> be displayed. ?"assembly codes" in particular sounds odd to me. > > I think Doug's idea is better: > If ON, GDB will disassemble the next source line when execution stops. > If the next source line cannot be ascertained, the next instruction > will be disassembled instead. > >> >> teawater> +If auto (which is the default), gdb will output a assembly code\n\ >> teawater> +at current address if there is not line message."), >> >> "at the current address" > > I will change it. > >> >> The line message bit could use rewording as well; at least s/not/no/. >> > > About line message. > struct symtab_and_line > { > ?struct symtab *symtab; > ?struct obj_section *section; > ?/* Line number. ?Line numbers start at 1 and proceed through symtab->nlines. > ? ? 0 is never a valid line number; it is used to indicate that line number > ? ? information is not available. ?*/ > ?int line; > > ?CORE_ADDR pc; > ?CORE_ADDR end; > ?int explicit_pc; > ?int explicit_line; > }; > It don't have comment name. > What about change it to "line debug message"? > > > Thanks for your help. > Hui >
Attachment:
disassemble-next-line.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |