From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30467 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2006 20:55:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 30454 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2006 20:55:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:55:39 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FY85o-0000hD-ER; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:55:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 1/3: target interface Message-ID: <20060424205536.GC27220@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <444426C7.6020604@redhat.com> <20060418125836.GB10130@nevyn.them.org> <20060418152443.GA13825@nevyn.them.org> <44456356.8090706@redhat.com> <444680C3.1010007@redhat.com> <20060420134343.GC11710@nevyn.them.org> <4447DF7D.6070506@redhat.com> <20060420195047.GA22563@nevyn.them.org> <44481EF9.5010900@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44481EF9.5010900@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00325.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:53:29PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > >It thinks that the attempt to step has succeeded and that the program > >is now running. That's pretty messy failing. > > Agreed, of course. Well, this code in remote_wait... > > 1.1 (shebs 16-Apr-99): default: > 1.1 (shebs 16-Apr-99): warning ("Invalid remote reply: %s", buf); > 1.1 (shebs 16-Apr-99): continue; > 1.1 (shebs 16-Apr-99): } > > *... has been essentially untouched since the public repository was > created. I could trace it back further, but my gut feeling is that > it is basically untested. I mean, if we say "continue" here, > of course it's going to hang... we've just consumed the target's > reply, so it's not going to send us anything else. Generally, you > send one command, you get one reply. > > My inclination is to call error here, instead of continue. > But of course I know of no way to test the effects, except > for the experiment you've just done. > > How does that strike you? Well, I've got no problem with that, but I don't think it's enough to settle this. "error: Invalid remote reply: " (the buffer will be empty) is not a very informative error message. We want to say that reverse execution is not supported. See my other message about when. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery