Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 2/5

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

On Wednesday 01 October 2008 20:17:54, Michael Snyder wrote:
> +  /* TODO: check target for capability.  */

Can we address this?  If you want to be able to query for support,
it would be a matter of defining a new qSupported feature.

On Wednesday 01 October 2008 20:17:54, Michael Snyder wrote:
> -         status->kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED;
> -         status->value.sig = TARGET_SIGNAL_0;
> +         if (buf[1] == '0' && buf[2] == '6')
> +           {
> +             status->kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_HISTORY;
> +           }
> +         else
> +           {
> +             status->kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED;
> +             status->value.sig = TARGET_SIGNAL_0;
> +           }

This isn't really an error, it's a defined reply, so it
looks a bit strange to me to be using an error number.

Is there a reason this can't be reported with a T stop reply and
a special "register", like "library" -> TARGET_WAITKIND_LOADED is?

AFAICT, nothing else in the remote implementation relies
on defined error numbers currently --- annoying at times, but
doesn't seem to apply here.

+
+static enum exec_direction_kind remote_get_execdir (void)

Function name on the first column please.

+{
+  if (remote_debug && info_verbose)
+    printf_filtered ("remote execdir is %s\n",
+                    remote_execdir == EXEC_FORWARD ? "forward" :
+                    remote_execdir == EXEC_REVERSE ? "reverse" :
+                    "unknown");
+  return remote_execdir;
+}

This should be made i18n aware.

Similarly in remote_set_execdir.

No new vCont packets -> no plans on reverse + multi-threading ?  :-)

-- 
Pedro Alves