[Bug backtrace/10689] New: replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[Bug backtrace/10689] New: replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[andre dot poenitz at nokia dot com]

Reverse execution currently also steps into code that was 'manually' executed
using  'call'. That is unfortunate in situations where 'calls' are used in an
automated way (like a stop hook, or initiated by a front end). It would be nice
if the tracking of the call execution could be temporarily (or globally) disabled.

-- 
           Summary: replay mode should not or only optionally enter code
                    executed by call()
           Product: gdb
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: backtrace
        AssignedTo: unassigned at sourceware dot org
        ReportedBy: andre dot poenitz at nokia dot com
                CC: gdb-prs at sourceware dot org,teawater at gmail dot com


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug backtrace/10689] replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[teawater at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From teawater at gmail dot com  2009-09-24 03:00 -------
Do you mean disable record in "call" command?

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug backtrace/10689] replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[andre dot poenitz at nokia dot com]

------- Additional Comments From andre dot poenitz at nokia dot com  2009-09-24 15:41 -------
Yes. 

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug backtrace/10689] replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[teawater at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From teawater at gmail dot com  2009-09-27 02:54 -------
I think record the most of memory and reg change is better.

If it affect something, could you please give a example?

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug backtrace/10689] replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[andre dot poenitz at nokia dot com]

------- Additional Comments From andre dot poenitz at nokia dot com  2009-09-28 06:44 -------
I use call() to extract information from the inferior after each stop (be it
triggered by a breakpoint or by stepping). The result is pretty much what the
Python pretty printers do, except that the code is run natively in the inferior
and I therefore do not have to deploy Python. With call() activity being
recorded I am basically unable to step backwards as I always end up in my
helper code.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug backtrace/10689] replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[teawater at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From teawater at gmail dot com  2009-10-10 02:42 -------
I think add a switch for prec to close record in call() can handle it.

Do you think it's OK?

Michael, what do you think about it?

Thanks,
Hui

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |msnyder at sourceware dot
                   |                            |org


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug backtrace/10689] replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[msnyder at vmware dot com]

------- Additional Comments From msnyder at vmware dot com  2009-10-11 03:09 -------
Subject: Re:  replay mode should not or only optionally
 enter code executed by call()

teawater at gmail dot com wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From teawater at gmail dot com  2009-10-10 02:42 -------
> I think add a switch for prec to close record in call() can handle it.
> 
> Do you think it's OK?
> 
> Michael, what do you think about it?

Well, this actually brings up a number of related questions.
What if, during the recording, the user makes changes such as:
  * Change memory
  * Change registers
  * Change the course of execution, eg. by
     - change the PC
     - "jump" command
     - "call" command

I think if user changes memory or registers, you record that.
Right?

And if user changes PC, or uses "jump" command, we will
record it also, right?

So in that case, it seems like we should also record the
"call" command.



-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug backtrace/10689] replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[teawater at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From teawater at gmail dot com  2009-10-12 07:15 -------
If the call() call the function that will not change the global value (some
memory), it will change the most of registers (for example: pc) to the value
before call().

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug backtrace/10689] replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[msnyder at vmware dot com]

------- Additional Comments From msnyder at vmware dot com  2009-10-12 22:38 -------
Subject: Re:  replay mode should not or only optionally
 enter code executed by call()

teawater at gmail dot com wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From teawater at gmail dot com  2009-10-12 07:15 -------
> If the call() call the function that will not change the global value (some
> memory), it will change the most of registers (for example: pc) to the value
> before call().
> 

Oh yeah, sorry, I mis-understood you.  I thought you were talking
about record mode.

Yes, during replay mode, any "call" will certainly fail.
But I don't worry about it, because, well, it will fail.
Call will try to change the PC, as you say, and that will
error out.

You would like to catch the error earlier?



-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug backtrace/10689] replay mode should not or only optionally enter code executed by call()

[teawater at gmail dot com]

------- Additional Comments From teawater at gmail dot com  2009-10-13 06:11 -------
Sorry I didn't talk it very clear.

I am talking about record mode.  "call()" will not change the a lot of memory
(we can ignore stack change) and register (gdb will change them back).  So maybe
we can ignore record the "call()" code.

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10689

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.