From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3900 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2008 20:11:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 3882 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Sep 2008 20:11:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:10:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EACF2A95B1; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id vr4v6A8qigUT; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1E32A9643; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:10:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 47603E7ACD; Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:11:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: teawater , Daniel Jacobowitz , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse Message-ID: <20080916201029.GB3935@adacore.com> References: <48CEAA05.8050006@vmware.com> <48CFFE21.8030709@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48CFFE21.8030709@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 > And I believe that consistent behavior / semantics should be: > > If you tell me that you are stopped at instruction 1000, > regardless of whether you were going forward or backward > when you got there, then I will expect that if I tell you > to execute forward, you will execute the instruction at > 1000. This makes total sense to me. I think I would be very confused by the debugger if I started going back and forth with a debugger that didn't follow the semantics above. -- Joel