This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH, updated] Add support for setting disassembler-options in GDB for POWER, ARM and S390
- From: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 10:31:19 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, updated] Add support for setting disassembler-options in GDB for POWER, ARM and S390
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On 2/13/17 9:52 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> Peter Bergner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Function get_arm_regname_num_options is only used in gdb. Since we've
> have disassembler_options_arm, we can use it in gdb and remove
> We use get_arm_regname_num_options in arm-tdep.c,
> /* Get the number of possible sets of register names defined in opcodes. */
> num_disassembly_options = get_arm_regname_num_options ();
> We can get 'num_disassembly_options' by iterating options from
> Likewise, we can use disassembler_options_arm in gdb and remove
> but we can replace it by disassembler_options_arm instead.
Sure, that should be doable.
>> +# Functions for allowing a target to modify its disassembler options.
>> +v:char *:disassembler_options:::0:0::0:pstring (gdbarch->disassembler_options)
> These options should be modeled as per-architecture data. We need to
> define a key to access that data dynamically. grep
> "static struct gdbarch_data *" in *.c.
This is new to me, so can you give me an explicit example?
Can you also explain how its behavior will change but doing
it your way?
>> +v:const disasm_options_t *:disassembler_options_arch:::0:0::0:host_address_to_string (gdbarch->disassembler_options_arch->name)
> disassembler_options_arch is not clear to me, and I feel
> gdbarch_disassembler_options_arch is even worse. How about renaming it
> to "disassembler_options_supported" or "valid_disassembler_options"?
Heh, looking back on it, yeah, I don't like the name either. :-)
Yours are much better. I'll probably go with valid_disassembler_options.