From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94698 invoked by alias); 9 May 2017 14:29:56 -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 94673 invoked by uid 89); 9 May 2017 14:29:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_1,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=guys X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 May 2017 14:29:53 +0000 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 33) id D2F0B1E4A4; Tue, 9 May 2017 10:29:54 -0400 (EDT) To: "Wiederhake, Tim" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/12] btrace: Use function segment index in call iterator. X-PHP-Originating-Script: 33:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 14:29:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Metzger, Markus T" In-Reply-To: <9676A094AF46E14E8265E7A3F4CCE9AF3C14CD43@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1494312929-22749-1-git-send-email-tim.wiederhake@intel.com> <1494312929-22749-5-git-send-email-tim.wiederhake@intel.com> <41edfcfb42636c7888cdc4660696f593@polymtl.ca> <9676A094AF46E14E8265E7A3F4CCE9AF3C14CD43@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.5 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00214.txt.bz2 On 2017-05-09 09:14, Wiederhake, Tim wrote: >> Otherwise, it LGTM. I'm not familiar with the btrace specific >> computations, but it made sense to me. I trust that you guys know >> what >> you are doing and have tested it enough :). > > I tested the patches on i686 and x86_64 -- maybe I should have > mentioned that. Great, thanks. >> If I understand correctly, btrace_function::number is 1-based? If so, >> it would be good to mention it somewhere (if it's not already, but I >> couldn't find it). > > See the comment on btrace_thread_info::functions :). Ah ok, it comes later in the series. I didn't have time to go that far yet. I suggest throwing a "1-based" in the doc of btrace_function::number, because that's where I would instinctively look for the meaning of that field: /* The 1-based index of the function segment in BTINFO->FUNCTIONS. */ Thanks, Simon