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: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Markus Metzger <markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:06:15 -0700
- 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>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Markus Metzger <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com
>> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:37:52 +0200
>>
>> Change record instruction-history /m to use its own simple source interleaving
>> algorithm. The most important part is that instructions are printed in
>> the order in which they were executed.
>
> What does "order in which they were executed" mean with today's
> multi-core and multi-execution unit CPUs?
>
> Thanks.
"multi-core" doesn't enter into the picture here.
The context is a single thread of control.
And "multi-execution unit" doesn't either because
that's just an underlying implementation detail
of the CPU - the program must behave "as if"
each instruction is executed serially
(or as otherwise defined by the ISA).