From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 609 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2008 18:07:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 341 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Oct 2008 18:07:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:06:34 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96FE1A00C; Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.92.59] (promb-2s-dhcp59.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.59]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC314C9A8E; Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48E65EDD.8060004@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:07:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "drow@false.org" , "pedro@codesourcery.com" , "teawater@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 5/5 References: <48E3CD66.9020600@vmware.com> <48E53FE3.8090306@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: 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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:40:51 -0700 >> From: Michael Snyder >> The context is, the user says "show exec-direction" >> with a target that doesn't support reverse. >> >> Is it better to just say "Forward", with no comment, >> or is it better to let the user know that the question >> is not applicable? Or both? > > Both, I'd say. OK, how about this? (gdb) show exec-direction Forward (target `None' does not support exec-direction). >>> Shouldn't we have some kind of caveat here regarding function prologue >>> and epilogue? >> Like what? >> >> If I've done my job right, prologues and epilogues >> should be handled transparently, just like they are >> when stepping forward. > > Are they treated transparently when we step forward? I had an > impression that in optimized code, they aren't always transparent. OK, I should have said "we do our best to treat them transparently". I suppose if the code is too optimized for us to do a good job when we're going forward, we will also have problems in reverse.