From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43EA03858D28 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2022 01:20:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 43EA03858D28 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 20T1KXXc016226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:20:38 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 20T1KXXc016226 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E02FF1EA69; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:20:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:20:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb/tui/disassembly view: make symbol name appear on a line of its own Content-Language: en-US To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Vasili Burdo , Simon Marchi References: <20220124192811.1530670-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20220128224140.GF425591@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <20220128224140.GF425591@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Sat, 29 Jan 2022 01:20:33 +0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3033.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 01:20:45 -0000 > This default `false` concerned my initially. The only times we call > tui_disassemble is either because we want to redraw the screen > contents, or we want to know what _would_ be drawn to the screen > if/when we do the redraw. > > Only, now, we draw the screen differently for these two cases, so, my > thinking goes, surely there's going to be some edge case where we ask, > what address would be on the screen if .... and we'll get the wrong > answer back. > > I played with this for a while, but couldn't get anything obvious to > break - I suspect that if there are bugs, they are going to be super > subtle, which addresses appear on the screen doesn't change much, > usually just one instruction different I think, so maybe it doesn't > matter. > > And given I couldn't spot anything, maybe I'm over thinking this, and > there is no problem... > > I guess my question is, did you already consider this already? Is > there a reason why having two strategies is known to be OK? No, I haven't considered this, it is a good question. I really don't know the TUI code well (if at all), so my thinking was that if the TUI experts say it's ok, it's because it's ok :). But indeed, it would be good to understand exactly what happens here. I'll git a little bit. Vasili, if you happen to know why we have these two behaviors (for_ui and !for_ui), feel free to answer. Simon