It looks like I just overlooked -s. So armed with that knowledge, is there any objection to adding, say, -x, which is more or less "continue disassembling at the last address"?
On Wed Jan 21 2015 at 2:19:38 PM <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > Yeah, the help says: > > -a <address-expression> ( --address <address-expression> ) > Disassemble function containing this address. > > so it is doing what is expected. You don't need to specify -c or -e, it > will dump some default number of instructions. Having it do something > reasonable when there is no function containing that address is not totally > unreasonable, except then -a and -s overlap in function, which is a little > odd. > > Jim > > > > On Jan 21, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Ed Maste <ema...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On 21 January 2015 at 16:57, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > >> > >> Is there any way to work around this restriction? It seems like it > >> shouldn't matter what the bounds of the function are, or if there's > even a > >> function at this address at all. As long as there's code. > > > > You should be able to use a combination of -s start address / -e end > > address / -c instruction count. > > > > Perhaps we could disassemble a small number of instructions starting > > from the provided address if -a is given an address outside of a > > function. > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
