This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Moving disassembler_command to cli land and using newer disassembler code
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:35:41 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFC: Moving disassembler_command to cli land and using newer disassembler code
- References: <3D98C7A7.8000806@redhat.com>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 05:52:39PM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> As soon as I can solve the small output differences between what is printed
> by the old code and what the new one prints I will be doing the following
> code migration, removing one more cli command from the library and making
> it use the disassembler code in disasm.c.
>
> This will allow us to have an option to have disassembler in mixed source
> and assembler mode in the CLI as well. But that is for when I come back.
>
> The differences in the output are the "+0" in symbolic addresses (which
> I've mentioned in a separate message) and the leading zeros in the numeric
> addresses (see printouts below). The old code used print_address_numeric()
> and the new code uses ui_out_field_core_addr(). W.r.t. this leading
> zero(s), I am not sure if we should print it or not (I can just update the
> test file).RFC:
> Output with old code:
> disassem foostatic
> Dump of assembler code for function foostatic:
> 0x8048153 <foostatic>: push %ebp
> 0x8048154 <foostatic+1>: mov %esp,%ebp
> 0x8048156 <foostatic+3>: pop %ebp
> 0x8048157 <foostatic+4>: ret
> End of assembler dump.
> (gdb) PASS: gdb.asm/asm-source.exp: look at static function
>
> Output with new code:
> disassem foostatic^M
> Dump of assembler code for function foostatic:^M
> 0x08048153 <foostatic+0>: push %ebp^M
> 0x08048154 <foostatic+1>: mov %esp,%ebp^M
> 0x08048156 <foostatic+3>: pop %ebp^M
> 0x08048157 <foostatic+4>: ret ^M
> End of assembler dump.^M
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.asm/asm-source.exp: look at static function
Well, I prefer the new version... it is much clearer. A little worried
about MIPS and 64-bit addresses, which will make this very wide and a
little hard to read, but I think we have the appropriate truncation
function somewhere?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer