This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] btrace: change record instruction-history /m
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com>
- Cc: dje at google dot com, palves at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:21:55 +0300
- Subject: Re: [rfc] btrace: change record instruction-history /m
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1439552272-6256-1-git-send-email-markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com> <83bneanfvb dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22S36oWzWagvHLHvc4aEnQCG1ddV5f1TbK6ddLY-DEHt2A at mail dot gmail dot com> <834mk1obll dot fsf at gnu dot org> <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B2333193E3D at IRSMSX104 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com> <83a8tqlznh dot fsf at gnu dot org> <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B2333194452 at IRSMSX104 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>
> CC: "dje@google.com" <dje@google.com>, "palves@redhat.com"
> <palves@redhat.com>, "gdb-patches@sourceware.org"
> <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 06:30:11 +0000
>
> > So I suggest to tell that in the manual, and in general avoid saying
> > anything as definitive as "in the order they were executed", and
> > instead tell something like "in the order the hardware support for
> > execution tracing collects them". This at least will point interested
> > readers to the vendor of the hardware if they want to ask specific
> > questions about the order.
>
> How about "in the order they were recorded"?
Fine with me, but sounds almost trivial, no?