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

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

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:50:50 +0100, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> This goes beyond what "btrace" did and has the potential for lots of discussions -
> especially when considering optimized code.

GDB currently has many issues with optimized code where it could behave better
(even for watchpoints etc.).  It is enough when the feature is useful
for "-O0 -g" code.


> It might be better if we postponed it in favor of reverse-stepping,

OK, fine with that, so that neither "btrace list" nor "record list" will
exist, in the favor of "reverse-step".


> but I wanted it
> to be considered when we're discussing the new "record" commands to avoid that
> we call what I called "record backtrace" "record list" and thus don't have an appropriate
> name left for such a source listing command.

OK.


I still find "record list-functions" and "record list-instructions" more clear
than "record backtrace" and "record disassemble".  Particularly as there is
the "list" word.

Sorry for "bikeshedding" it, additionally so late, I do not want to keep this
discussion longer anymore.


Thanks,
Jan