From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7662 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2013 15:12:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 7650 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2013 15:12:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:11:56 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MIZ00300LS3FC00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:11:43 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MIZ002LTM7GYED0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:11:40 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:12:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] doc, record: document record changes In-reply-to: To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83sj4fupcf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1361808917-16934-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1361808917-16934-4-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <838v6bhttl.fsf@gnu.org> <83vc9burfw.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 > From: "Metzger, Markus T" > CC: "jan.kratochvil@redhat.com" , > "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:45:35 +0000 > > > > 1 void foo (void) > > > 2 { > > > 3 ... > > > 4 bar (); > > > 5 ... > > > 6 } > > > > > > When we record the execution of foo, there will be instructions for the > > > first ..., then instructions for bar, and then instructions for the second .... > > > > > > The "record function-call-history" will print: > > > foo.c:1-4 foo (void) > > > bar.c:8-12 bar (void) > > > foo.c:5-6 foo (void > > > > This indicates that "record function-execution-history" might be a > > better name. But in any case, weren't 'bar' and 'foo' called in this > > example? > > Yes, they were called. > > What I have problems with is that foo was called once but we print > two lines for foo, one for instructions before the call to bar and one > for instructions after the return from bar. > > Wouldn't "called" suggest that there be only one line for foo in the > above example? Perhaps we should change our aspect angle and use this: "record function-call-history" prints the execution history at function granularity. > In the documentation, there had been a @kindex show record memory-query. > I changed it to @kindex show record full memory-query. OK, but there should be only one entry that begins with "@kindex show record full".