Re: [PATCH v3] gdb: add 'maintenance print record-instruction' command

[Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>]

On 02/01/2023 16:37, Alexandra Petlanova Hajkova wrote:
>
>     +# This file is part of the GDB testsuite.  it tests the
>     functionality of
>     +# the maintenance print record-instruction command, but does not
>     check the
>     +# syntax, only if the command finds or fails to find recorded
>     history.
>     +
>     +if ![supports_reverse] {
>     +    return
>     +}
>     +
>
>
> I think this patch is good to go in general.
>  But it might be nice to add a small summary about how the test works 
> as a comment at the beginning of the test?
>
I see. I've expanded that starting comment to the following:

# This file is part of the GDB testsuite.  It tests the functionality of
# the maintenance print record-instruction command, but does not check the
# syntax, only if the command finds or fails to find recorded history.
# This is done by putting the inferior in mulpitle states with and without
# history to be printed, then checking if GDB is able to print an
# instruction or not.
# To identify if GDB has printed an instruction, we can see if some
# change is printed, since any instruction must have at least a change
# to the PC.

What do you think?

-- 
Cheers,
Bruno

> Regards,
> Alexandra