From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-129009-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17011 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2016 18:22:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 16977 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jan 2016 18:22:24 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:747, letter
X-HELO: ausc60ps301.us.dell.com
Received: from ausc60ps301.us.dell.com (HELO ausc60ps301.us.dell.com) (143.166.148.206) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:22:23 +0000
X-LoopCount0: from 10.170.28.40
From: <Paul_Koning@Dell.com>
To: <jhb@freebsd.org>
CC: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, <palves@redhat.com>, <k.toshihito@yahoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a new format letter to dump instructions backward
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:22:00 -0000
Message-ID: <3F40FBEE-2395-4ECC-94A0-A395B35B788C@dell.com>
References: <1827952218.466587.1453670934999.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1827952218.466587.1453670934999.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <56A609E7.6050903@redhat.com> <2015581.ugHgmqoO9R@ralph.baldwin.cx>
In-Reply-To: <2015581.ugHgmqoO9R@ralph.baldwin.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <887FA7891827694EA80DC8D93B9F30F4@dell.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00630.txt.bz2


> On Jan 25, 2016, at 12:52 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Monday, January 25, 2016 11:41:27 AM Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 01/24/2016 09:28 PM, Toshihito Kikuchi wrote:
>> ...
>> #3 - negative repeat counts ?
>>=20
>>   (gdb) x /4i    // next 4 instructions
>>   (gdb) x /-4i   // previous 4 instructions
>> ...
>> #3 feels natural to me.  What do you (and others) think?
>=20
> I think #3 is the most natural as well.  I also think this is a
> very useful feature.

Yes, but how do you do instructions backwards if the instruction length is =
variable?  It is entirely possible that there will be multiple possible ans=
wers, and no way to tell which one (if any) is "correct".

	paul