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
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 6+ 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] 6+ 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
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ 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] 6+ 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
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ 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] 6+ 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
2024-07-10 17:40 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ 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] 6+ 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
2024-07-10 17:40 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ 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] 6+ 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
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2024-04-05 11:31 ` brandon.belew at zetier dot com
@ 2024-07-10 17:40 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: blarsen at redhat dot com @ 2024-07-10 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18059
Guinevere Larsen <blarsen at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |blarsen at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from Guinevere Larsen <blarsen at redhat dot com> ---
Commenting here to say, if anyone is interested in implementing this feature,
I'd love to see it!
Record-full definitely has enough information to calculate this and display,
but I have other priorities and can't do it myself.
If someone is new, or semi-new, to GDB and would like to make a large
contribution, feel free to reach out and I can help with mentoring on
contributing to GDB or just brainstorm ideas.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-07-10 17:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ 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
2024-07-10 17:40 ` blarsen at redhat 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).