From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4150 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2008 09:10:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 4142 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2008 09:10:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from oden.vtab.com (HELO oden.vtab.com) (62.20.90.195) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:09:58 +0000 Received: from oden.vtab.com (oden.vtab.com [127.0.0.1]) by oden.vtab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409B426F691; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:09:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from jessica.hq.vtech (jessica.hq.vtech [10.0.0.70]) by oden.vtab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E3126F670; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:09:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <494B64E4.9030307@virtutech.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:10:00 -0000 From: Tomas Holmberg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081119) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder CC: Vladimir Prus , "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: reverse for GDB/MI References: <49463870.6080302@virtutech.com> <494A0A9C.6020809@virtutech.com> <494AC1A5.2000205@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <494AC1A5.2000205@vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00341.txt.bz2 Michael Snyder wrote: > 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. I am not convinced that adding the exec-dir setting was good. What should the user expect when first changing the direction to reverse and then doing reverse-step, a normal step? GDB currently prints a warning in this case, "Already in reverse mode...". Why is not reverse the normal debugging direction and forward the non-normal one? I know that debugging forward should/must be default, I just want to open everyones mind about reverse debugging. What is the normal debugging case? something has gone wrong and you want to see what happened or you know that something will go wrong and you want to see what happens. /tomas