From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4210 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2006 22:54:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 4202 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2006 22:54:25 -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; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:54:24 +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 k3KMsM6B018614; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:54:22 -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 k3KMsKAM031785; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:54:21 -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 k3KMsGTq028779; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:54:17 -0400 Message-ID: <44481117.8070904@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:54:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 3/3: user interface / docs References: <442DAAD9.6080509@redhat.com> <44442877.1060401@redhat.com> <20060420160717.GF11710@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060420160717.GF11710@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/msg00300.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > FWIW, I've got no opinions on this patch. The content looks fine. My > only concern is that I don't much like "set" variables which succeed or > fail depending on the target - we can switch targets unexpectedly. > > Can we just give the error in proceed if the target can't run in > reverse? You mean, "and not give an error when you say "set exec-dir"? Well here's the thing: I've had experience with something very similar*, and the users complained. They wanted to know sooner if there was a problem. * Tracepoints. You don't find out that the remote target can't support them until you say continue.