Re: [rfc 6/8] record disas: omit function names by default

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:42:44 +0100, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> I don't insist on the names I gave those commands, but I'd rather we had a single
> word for each command. 

Due to <tab> completion and GDB abbreviations I do not think a single word is
required, as discussed occasionally in other cases on gdb-patches.


> Consider the existing "list" and "backtrace" commands. With the same arguments,
> they should be renamed into "list-source-lines" and "list-call-frames";-)

I see the problem in that these names already have some established meaning
now while you overload these names for a different functionality in btrace.


> Jan described it nicely above: "it's a 'backtrace' into history, not into upper frames".
> The term 'backtrace' suggests it's backwards and about functions. Being a "record"
> sub-command suggests it's working on the execution log.

I got used to it now but for new users it is not obvious enough.

"backtrace" is very fundamental commands of GDB with well known semantics.

Is that "record trace-functions" OK for you?


> The "btrace list" command that Jan mentioned works on blocks, i.e. sequentially
> executed code between two branches. This would be between "record list" and
> "record backtrace". I have not added a similar command to "record".

Is this the intended final state or do you still plan updating
archer-mmetzger-btrace?  I would find the "btrace ..." commands more suitable
to be placed under "record btrace ...", so that one has all the available
"record btrace ..." commands at one place with "record btrace <tab><tab>".

There can be "btrace ..." ones as aliases to them (although I do not think it
is needed, user can create an alias using the 'alias' command easily if
needed).


Thanks,
Jan