Jakob Engblom wrote:
>> The file should be called mi-reverse.exp, I think, because mi2- files are
>> supposed to test
>> that whatever was once announced as MI2 is not broken. And this is new
>> development. Likewise,

Oops, sorry -- revised part 3 of MI reverse patch.


> Done. 
>  
>>         set MIFLAGS "-i=mi2"
>>
>> should be:
>>
>>         set MIFLAGS "-i=mi"
> 
> Done.
> 
>> Also, I would appreciate if this:
>>
>>     # Test exec-reverse-next
>>     # FIXME: Why does it take 2 next commands to get back to the
>>     #        previous line?
>>
>> were somehow addressed. I am not familiar with details of reverse behaviour,
> so I
>> did not even try to check that the tested commands and locations, etc, are
> right.
> 
> Since this is tested on top of process record, I think I am not the best person
> to answer... but in general, what tends to happen in reverse in my experience is
> this:
> 
> We have lines of code (or instructions)
> 
> A
> B
> 
> And we stop with a breakpoint in line B.
> 
> We are then at the end of B, or in the middle of B, in the execution.
> 
> Then, doing reverse one step/instruction/line will move you to the start of B. 
> 
> And another step/instruction/line moves you to before A was executed. 
> 
> Does that make sense for process record?
> 
> /jakob