From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-125352-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 114552 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2015 14:22:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 114543 invoked by uid 89); 18 Aug 2015 14:22:37 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mtaout22.012.net.il
Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:22:35 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NTA00K007TN1100@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:22:06 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NTA00KBD7WU1C00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:22:06 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:22:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] btrace: change record instruction-history /m
In-reply-to: <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B2333194452@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>
To: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>
Cc: dje@google.com, palves@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83si7gllrw.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <1439552272-6256-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <83bneanfvb.fsf@gnu.org> <CADPb22S36oWzWagvHLHvc4aEnQCG1ddV5f1TbK6ddLY-DEHt2A@mail.gmail.com> <834mk1obll.fsf@gnu.org> <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B2333193E3D@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> <83a8tqlznh.fsf@gnu.org> <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B2333194452@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00467.txt.bz2

> From: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>
> CC: "dje@google.com" <dje@google.com>, "palves@redhat.com"
> 	<palves@redhat.com>, "gdb-patches@sourceware.org"
> 	<gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 06:30:11 +0000
> 
> > So I suggest to tell that in the manual, and in general avoid saying
> > anything as definitive as "in the order they were executed", and
> > instead tell something like "in the order the hardware support for
> > execution tracing collects them".  This at least will point interested
> > readers to the vendor of the hardware if they want to ask specific
> > questions about the order.
> 
> How about "in the order they were recorded"?

Fine with me, but sounds almost trivial, no?