From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17224 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2008 11:07:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 17215 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2008 11:07:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:06:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A38A21E791; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:06:47 -0500 (EST) 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 BAE0guZknPn2; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:06:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F211821E790; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6BC22E7ACD; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:06:36 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:07:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tomas Holmberg Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: reverse for GDB/MI Message-ID: <20081219110636.GA3793@adacore.com> References: <49463870.6080302@virtutech.com> <494A0A9C.6020809@virtutech.com> <494B5A82.4020004@virtutech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <494B5A82.4020004@virtutech.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: 2008-12/txt/msg00342.txt.bz2 > You can also look at the documentation to see if the reverse commands are > just variants of the forward variants. I do not think we can replace the > documentation for reverse-step, reverse-step-instruction, reverse-continue, > reverse-finish, reverse-next, and reverse-next-instruction and just say it > is the reverse variant for the corresponding forward commands. Please look > at the other reverse commands and see if you can say "reverse-finish" is > just the reverse variant of finish. When I reviewed the patches that introduced the generic mechanics for reverse debugging, I remember that some cases were particularly difficult to understand; or in other words, it was difficult to understand what we were supposed to do. Finish was one of the commands that were tricky to "reverse", I remember this example clearly. -- Joel