Re: reverse for GDB/MI

Doug Evans
2009-02-06T04:11:43Z

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> It seems to be that it's best to have some structure in MI commands and flags.
> Say, we have continue and reverse-continue. What if you want some other form
> of continue, say "continue for N seconds". Should we have then:
>
> continue
> reverse-continue
> timed-continue
> reverse-timed-continue
>
> ? That would be fairly cumbersome. Also, the --reverse option can be documented
> with a single paragraph, whilst individual commands should all have individual
> documentation.

timed-continue could take a negative argument to go backwards.

[fwiw, I'm in the camp that dislikes --reverse too]

> To summarize, I would like the patch to be adjusted in the following way:
>
> 1. Use --reverse option
> 2. Arrange for --exec-step, and similar, to ignore 'set exec-direction',
> since all new MI commands should strive to be stateless. This, of course,
> will mean that one cannot get existing frontend to do reverse step by
> typing a command into CLI console, but it is not obvious if existing
> frontend will work without modification anyway.

Can we remove exec-direction altogether?
1/2 :-)