This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v9 11/29] record-btrace: optionally indent function call history
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Markus Metzger <markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com>
- Cc: jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:23:34 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/29] record-btrace: optionally indent function call history
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1387471499-29444-1-git-send-email-markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com> <1387471499-29444-12-git-send-email-markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com>
On 12/19/2013 04:44 PM, Markus Metzger wrote:
> Add a new modifier /c to the "record function-call-history" command to
> indent the function name based on its depth in the call stack.
>
> Also reorder the optional fields to have the indentation at the very beginning.
> Prefix the insn range (/i modifier) with "inst ".
I was a little surprised the manual didn't get an update for this one,
but I see an /i example is currently lacking. Can one use both
/i and /l at the same time ?
> Change the range syntax from "begin-end" to "begin,end" to allow copy&paste to
> the "record instruction-history" and "list" commands.
(This bit seems to be missing in NEWS. Not sure it was on purpose.)
> There is one known bug regarding indentation that results from the fact that we
> have the current instruction already inside the branch trace. When the current
> instruction is the first (and only) instruction in a function on the outermost
> level for which we have not seen the call, the indentation starts at level 1
> with 2 leading spaces.
Hmm. Why are we adding known bugs? I'm not sure I understood it, but from
your description it sounds like the condition should be detectable?
--
Pedro Alves