From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7947 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2006 22:08:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 7939 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2006 22:08:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:08:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3IM8UIa003904; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:08:30 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k3IM8OdN018258; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:08:25 -0400 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k3IM8NTq004200; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:08:23 -0400 Message-ID: <44456356.8090706@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:08:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: GDB Patches Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 1/3: target interface References: <442DAA70.5070203@redhat.com> <444426C7.6020604@redhat.com> <20060418125836.GB10130@nevyn.them.org> <20060418152443.GA13825@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060418152443.GA13825@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:58:36AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >>On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 04:37:43PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: >> >>>Two week ping... there having been no objections to this patch, >>>shall I check it in? >> >>For something this major, I think we should make sure someone else at >>least looks over it first. I haven't had time, and I was hoping that >>someone else would take the time; but if no one does, I will >>definitely get to it soon. > > > Oh, I see one thing in a first look: you are adding to the remote > protocol without adding documentation for the new packets or error > codes. Please document them! Good point. If anyone wants to modify them, now's the time. How's this, at least for a start? @@ -22554,6 +22660,16 @@ Don't use this packet. Use the @samp{Z} and @samp{z} packets instead (@pxref{insert breakpoint or watchpoint packet}). +@item bc +@cindex @samp{bc} packet +Continue execution in reverse (if capable). +@xref{Reverse Execution, ,Running programs backward}. + +@item bs +@cindex @samp{bs} packet +Single step in reverse (if capable). +@xref{Reverse Execution, ,Running programs backward}. + @item c @var{addr} @cindex @samp{c} packet Continue. @var{addr} is address to resume. If @var{addr} is omitted,