From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27195 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2013 08:52:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 27186 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2013 08:52:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:52:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1J8pxcp022604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:51:59 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.18]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1J8pscK028294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:51:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:52:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , "Tom Tromey (tromey@redhat.com)" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "markus.t.metzger@gmail.com" Subject: [RFC on command names] Re: [rfc 6/8] record disas: omit function names by default Message-ID: <20130219085153.GA8052@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20130215183256.GA16845@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83sj4xs8hp.fsf@gnu.org> <20130215190955.GA18269@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130218130247.GA7250@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130218141311.GA9315@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130218151353.GA14121@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00494.txt.bz2 Hi Markus, thanks for summarizing it. As everyone has his different naming opinion choosing the IMO most clear naming by Eli (unless more opinions appear today). > Eli: > > record instruction-history > > record source-lines-history > > record function-call-history Thanks, Jan On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:34:02 +0100, Metzger, Markus T wrote: > Markus: > > > record disassemble ......... instructions > > > record list ....................... source lines > > > record backtrace ............. functions > > Jan: > > 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. > > Eli: > > > Maybe "record list-functions"? > > > > How about "record trace-functions"? > > Eli: > > record instruction-history > > record source-lines-history > > record function-call-history > > Tom: > > Jan> Maybe "record list-functions"? > > > > "record history" or "record function-history"?