[Bug gdb/18059] New: Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"?

[Bug gdb/18059] New: Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"?

[dje at google dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18059

            Bug ID: 18059
           Summary: Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record
                    function-call-history" work with "record full"?
           Product: gdb
           Version: HEAD
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: gdb
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: dje at google dot com

If I'm doing full recording, why can't I see the instruction history or
function call history?
Is there an error in my mental model of how this is supposed to work?

(gdb) record inst
You can't do that when your target is `record-full'
(gdb) record func
You can't do that when your target is `record-full'
(gdb)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug record/18059] Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"?

[dje at google dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18059

dje at google dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|gdb                         |record

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug record/18059] Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"?

[palves at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18059

Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |palves at redhat dot com

--- Comment #1 from Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com> ---
How can we tell if we don't know your mental model?  :-)

I think those are only implemented in the record-btrace target.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug record/18059] Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"?

[dje at google dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18059

--- Comment #2 from dje at google dot com ---
Well, if it's implemented for "btrace" it should be doable for "full".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug record/18059] Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"?

[brandon.belew at zetier dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18059

Brandon Belew <brandon.belew at zetier dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |brandon.belew at zetier dot com

--- Comment #3 from Brandon Belew <brandon.belew at zetier dot com> ---
Bumping this issue. I guess this should really be more of a feature request
than a bug, but from a "record full" recording, surely there would be enough
information to figure out which functions were called? There *definitely*
should be enough information to list the instruction history, we've already
recorded every instruction. 

"record full" is available on substantially more targets than "record btrace"
and the "record function-call-history" command would be very useful.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.