Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> When we're stopped at a breakpoint and we want to
> continue in reverse, we're not actually going to
> execute the instruction at the breakpoint -- we're
> going to de-execute the previous instruction.
>
> Therefore there's no need to singlestep before
> inserting breakpoints.  In fact it would be a bad
> idea to do so, because if there is a breakpoint at
> the previous instruction, we WANT to hit it.
>
> Note that this patch is to be applied to the reverse branch.

If there is a breakpoint on the previous instruction, will you hit it
before or after de-executing that instruction?  It seems like this
logic should be somehow still necessary... but I can't put my finger
on when.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery