From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24641 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2008 22:23:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 24633 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2008 22:23:36 -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; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:23:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F42112A9683; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:22:58 -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 Aos3GwMsWpDQ; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:22:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1462A967B; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:22:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AAEAEE7ACD; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 15:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:23:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Pedro Alves , teawater Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 1/5 Message-ID: <20081006222258.GF21853@adacore.com> References: <48E3CCB6.4060501@vmware.com> <20081006203021.GA21853@adacore.com> <48EA7C75.7070703@vmware.com> <20081006211131.GA26663@caradoc.them.org> <48EA8065.9070001@vmware.com> <20081006212504.GB31085@caradoc.them.org> <48EA868E.3070404@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48EA868E.3070404@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: 2008-10/txt/msg00184.txt.bz2 > >In infrun, the same as any other user supplied execution state. > >For instance the scheduler-locking setting. > > I'm ok with that, if that's what we decide. > > But understand -- the target HAS to remember this state, > so now we are duplicating state. Unles we go back and > reverse that very first design decision and add a parameter > to resume -- which will be a lot of work. I don't think that adding a parameter to resume will be beneficial at this point. But I think it would be beneficial to have it in infrun instead of having the extra target method - the "target" in GDB's sense of the target layer doesn't have to remember the direction, since it can query infrun. What you're saying is that the actual target (be it some device behind the remote protocol, or a native target, etc) will also have to remember. But I think that's fine, and I think it's better to have this really small duplication rather than taking the chance of sending a packet over a slow line. In fact, you already realized this, since you cached the direction in the remote target layer. ;-). -- Joel