From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4506 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2008 21:12:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 4491 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2008 21:12:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:11:34 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F37B10D2E; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:11:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC3810D2A; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:11:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KmxMZ-000713-DV; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:11:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Joel Brobecker , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Pedro Alves , teawater Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 1/5 Message-ID: <20081006211131.GA26663@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Joel Brobecker , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Pedro Alves , teawater References: <48E3CCB6.4060501@vmware.com> <20081006203021.GA21853@adacore.com> <48EA7C75.7070703@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48EA7C75.7070703@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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/msg00162.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 02:00:37PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > It was a design choice. > > There were two choices: > 1) modify target_resume (ops->to_resume), to add a direction > parameter. > 2) Add a to_set_direction target method. > > The first would have required modifying all existing targets, > so I chose the second. The problem is, we're now talking about a multi-process GDB. It's a small step from there to one using multiple targets automatically. Is core GDB going to have to do the juggling / bookkeeping to keep direction in sync for all of them? The granularity will depend on the backend... If it's just a matter of changing the existing targets, then avoiding that on a branch makes sense - but updating everything in the mainline version makes sense too. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery