From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11702 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2008 03:18:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 11694 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2008 03:18:15 -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, 07 Oct 2008 03:17:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601252A96B2; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:17:38 -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 9CNV+cnYC5Vs; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4652D2A96AF; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 23:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D231FE7ACD; Mon, 6 Oct 2008 20:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:18:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Daniel Jacobowitz , Pedro Alves , teawater Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 4/5 Message-ID: <20081007031737.GB28138@adacore.com> References: <48E3CD40.3070206@vmware.com> <20081006215637.GE21853@adacore.com> <48EA8E20.9090306@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48EA8E20.9090306@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/msg00197.txt.bz2 > There's actually another function that implements the > reverse-finish command. This function is a helper, > one that just does part of the job. I think I got that part, perhaps in my attempt to save my fingers (they REALLY hurt from too much typing right now :-(), I didn't express what I wanted to say all that well. I hope you got the idea. > >>+ /* (Kludgy way of letting wait_for_inferior know...) */ > >>+ tp->step_range_start = tp->step_range_end = 1; > > > >AARGH! More special meaning to these addresses. We really ought to > >clean these up and put some specific flags in the structure, one day. > >I don't know why we're trying so hard to resume these fields. > > OK, in this instance, I did not add the special meaning. > I was only following what practice was already there. ;-) right - I was just complaining, not saying that you were responsible nor asking you to fix it. No problemo (and thanks for bearing with my whining ;-). -- Joel