From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-60686-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 24578 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2008 21:39:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 24570 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2008 21:39:07 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
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/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:38:32 +0000
Received: from mailhost5.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) 	by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA424100B; 	Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.92.151] (promb-2s-dhcp151.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.151]) 	by mailhost5.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F56DC0A6; 	Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <494AC1A5.2000205@vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:39:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomas Holmberg <th@virtutech.com>
CC: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>,   "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: reverse for GDB/MI
References: <49463870.6080302@virtutech.com> <gib8ll$dus$1@ger.gmane.org> <494A0A9C.6020809@virtutech.com>
In-Reply-To: <494A0A9C.6020809@virtutech.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: 2008-12/txt/msg00332.txt.bz2

Tomas Holmberg wrote:
>> I am not quite sure about adding new set of commands for that. Can we use
>> --reverse option, thereby not introducing new commands?
> 
> Adding a reverse option to the existing commands is possible. But I do
> not think it is a good idea. It is not always obvious what should
> happen when running a standard command in reverse. I consider the
> reverse commands as a new set commands and not a variant of the old.


That's correct.  The new commands (eg. reverse-next) account for
the differences between the standard commands and what should
happen in reverse.

However, note that (set exec-dir reverse ; next) is equivalent
to "reverse-next".  It will do the right thing.