From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21522 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2008 05:02:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 21508 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2008 05:02:30 -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; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:01:50 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B419010D2E; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 05:01:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F1F10D2A; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 05:01:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kn4he-0005f2-VU; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:01:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:02:00 -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: <20081007050146.GA21743@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> <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/1.5.17 (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/msg00202.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 02:43:42PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > 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. What I was trying to say is that on a branch, it's a lot of work. In a patch, it's not. It's a one line change to maybe fifteen files - more lines if you add errors for unsupported direction, but still less work than we've spent discussing it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery