From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20720 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2008 17:56:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 20710 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Oct 2008 17:56:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:56:05 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46FB016009; Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PA-EXCAHT01.vmware.com (pa-excaht01.vmware.com [10.16.67.175]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C282C9A10; Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa-excaht12.vmware.com (10.113.81.205) by PA-EXCAHT01.vmware.com (10.16.67.175) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.263.0; Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:55:03 -0700 Received: from PA-EXMBX14.vmware.com ([10.113.81.216]) by pa-excaht12.vmware.com ([10.113.81.205]) with mapi; Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:56:03 -0700 From: Michael Snyder To: Eli Zaretskii CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "drow@false.org" , "pedro@codesourcery.com" , "teawater@gmail.com" Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:56:00 -0000 Subject: RE: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 5/5 Message-ID: <09B97D2C4B49DF409E2D018999AC6FE115B42A89C3@PA-EXMBX14.vmware.com> References: <48E3CD66.9020600@vmware.com> <48E53FE3.8090306@vmware.com> <48E65EDD.8060004@vmware.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 Done and done. Excellent! We seem to be approaching convergence! ________________________________________ From: Eli Zaretskii [eliz@gnu.org] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 1:11 AM To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; drow@false.org; pedro@codesourcery.com; tea= water@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 5/5 > Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:05:17 -0700 > From: Michael Snyder > CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "drow@fa= lse.org" , "pedro@codesourcery.com" , "teawater@gmail.com" > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:40:51 -0700 > >> From: Michael Snyder > > >> The context is, the user says "show exec-direction" > >> with a target that doesn't support reverse. > >> > >> Is it better to just say "Forward", with no comment, > >> or is it better to let the user know that the question > >> is not applicable? Or both? > > > > Both, I'd say. > > OK, how about this? > > (gdb) show exec-direction > Forward (target `None' does not support exec-direction). Fine with me. > >>> Shouldn't we have some kind of caveat here regarding function prologue > >>> and epilogue? > >> Like what? > >> > >> If I've done my job right, prologues and epilogues > >> should be handled transparently, just like they are > >> when stepping forward. > > > > Are they treated transparently when we step forward? I had an > > impression that in optimized code, they aren't always transparent. > > OK, I should have said "we do our best to treat them > transparently". I suppose if the code is too optimized > for us to do a good job when we're going forward, we will > also have problems in reverse. Yes, that's what I had in mind. So perhaps the text should be a little vaguer and maybe with some reasonable qualifier, like "unless the code is too heavily optimized". Maybe have that in a @footnote.