Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 2/5

Pedro Alves
2008-10-06T19:50:01Z

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