public inbox for gdb-prs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug gdb/18059] New: Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"?
@ 2015-02-27 23:24 dje at google dot com
2015-02-28 0:18 ` [Bug record/18059] " dje at google dot com
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: dje at google dot com @ 2015-02-27 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [Bug record/18059] Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"? 2015-02-27 23:24 [Bug gdb/18059] New: Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"? dje at google dot com @ 2015-02-28 0:18 ` dje at google dot com 2015-02-28 0:22 ` palves at redhat dot com ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: dje at google dot com @ 2015-02-28 0:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb-prs 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug record/18059] Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"? 2015-02-27 23:24 [Bug gdb/18059] New: Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"? dje at google dot com 2015-02-28 0:18 ` [Bug record/18059] " dje at google dot com @ 2015-02-28 0:22 ` palves at redhat dot com 2015-02-28 15:23 ` dje at google dot com 2024-04-05 11:31 ` brandon.belew at zetier dot com 3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: palves at redhat dot com @ 2015-02-28 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb-prs 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug record/18059] Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"? 2015-02-27 23:24 [Bug gdb/18059] New: Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"? dje at google dot com 2015-02-28 0:18 ` [Bug record/18059] " dje at google dot com 2015-02-28 0:22 ` palves at redhat dot com @ 2015-02-28 15:23 ` dje at google dot com 2024-04-05 11:31 ` brandon.belew at zetier dot com 3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: dje at google dot com @ 2015-02-28 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb-prs 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug record/18059] Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"? 2015-02-27 23:24 [Bug gdb/18059] New: Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"? dje at google dot com ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2015-02-28 15:23 ` dje at google dot com @ 2024-04-05 11:31 ` brandon.belew at zetier dot com 3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: brandon.belew at zetier dot com @ 2024-04-05 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb-prs 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-05 11:31 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-02-27 23:24 [Bug gdb/18059] New: Why can't "record instruction-history" and "record function-call-history" work with "record full"? dje at google dot com 2015-02-28 0:18 ` [Bug record/18059] " dje at google dot com 2015-02-28 0:22 ` palves at redhat dot com 2015-02-28 15:23 ` dje at google dot com 2024-04-05 11:31 ` brandon.belew at zetier dot com
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).