From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22842 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2013 17:16:43 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 22830 invoked by uid 89); 22 Sep 2013 17:16:42 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 17:16:42 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com 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 r8MHGd2n029415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 22 Sep 2013 13:16:39 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-46.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.46]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8MHGZqD009381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 22 Sep 2013 13:16:38 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 17:16:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "Himpel, Christian" Subject: Re: [patch v4 03/24] btrace: change branch trace data structure Message-ID: <20130922171635.GA28976@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1372842874-28951-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1372842874-28951-4-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <20130818190426.GC24153@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130912200927.GA29475@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130922165720.GA27572@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130922165720.GA27572@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00802.txt.bz2 Hi Markus, please disregard this mail of mine, you have fixed it by: /* The function level in a back trace across the entire branch trace. - A caller's level is one higher than the level of its callee. + A caller's level is one lower than the level of its callee. Jan On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 18:57:20 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 22:09:27 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > struct btrace_function > > /* The function level in a back trace across the entire branch trace. > > A caller's level is one higher than the level of its callee. > > > > Levels can be negative if we see returns for which we have not seen > > the corresponding calls. The branch trace thread information provides > > a fixup to normalize function levels so the smallest level is zero. */ > > int level; > > > > should be: > > - A caller's level is one higher than the level of its callee. > > + A callee's level is one higher than the level of its caller. > > > > as one can see for gdb.btrace/tailcall.exp: > > > > record function-call-history /c 1^M > > 1 0main^M > > 2 1 foo^M > > 3 2 bar^M > > 4 0main^M > > ^ > > > > In such case please rename btrace_function->level to something else, such as > > btrace_function->calls_level or btrace_function->reverse_level etc. > > as it is the opposite of the related GDB frame_info->level field. > > > This part of my mail got somehow lost, I do not see your reply mentioning and > I also do not see any change for btrace_function.level in the patch series v6. > > > Regards, > Jan