From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-58664-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5672 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2008 18:16:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 5662 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Sep 2008 18:16:41 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.113.40.141)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:15:52 +0000
Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.64.160]) 	by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C2C6B64; 	Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.92.218] (promb-2s-dhcp218.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.218]) 	by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7B98E607; 	Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48D148D9.1080401@vmware.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:16:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: teawater <teawater@gmail.com>
CC: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>,   "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
References: <48CEAA05.8050006@vmware.com>	 <daef60380809152121n741b14f0ue69a8456108792b0@mail.gmail.com>	 <48CFFE21.8030709@vmware.com> <daef60380809170831p283405f3ybcad8165fa046261@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <daef60380809170831p283405f3ybcad8165fa046261@mail.gmail.com>
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-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-09/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2

teawater wrote:
> Agree with you.
> 
> And I think Maybe need add a test for it.
> I think is:
> 1. There is a statement that set the value of a variable.
> For example:
> a = 1;
> 2. Before this statement, the value of this variable is not same with new value.
> 3. Set a breakpoint on this statement, And check the value of this
> variable when forward execute and reverse execute program break by
> this breakpoint. If the value is the new value, fail. If is the old
> value, pass.

That's the idea behind this test.
Do you think this test does what you want?
If not, what would you add to it?

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-09/msg00365.html