[RFA] Expand "info record"

[Michael Snyder]

Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 October 2009 20:44:16, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> +  unsigned long long insn_num;
> 
> ULONGEST
> 
>> +       (p != NULL) && (p->type != record_end);
> 
> Superfluous parens.
> 
>> +      printf_filtered (_("Lowest recorded instruction number is %llu.\n"),
>> +                      p->u.end.insn_num);
> 
> pulongest

OK to all.


>> +      /* Display instruction number for last instruction in the log.  */
>> +      printf_filtered (_("Highest recorded instruction number is %llu.\n"), 
>> +                      record_insn_count ? record_insn_count - 1 : 0);
> 
> Why the conditional subtraction?

Because I don't want it to say "-1".

> Given this post inc:
>> +  rec->u.end.insn_num = record_insn_count++;

No, the post inc implies that the count is actually one greater
than the last insn that used it.  Yes?

> The subtraction looks suspicious.
> 
> Could you add a comment to record_insn_num and
> record_insn_count's definitions explaining what they are and
> how they're different, if it doesn't become obvious?

Yep, done, see attached.

Thanks!



-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: info2.txt
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20091020/63e85c3b/attachment.txt>