From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22453 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2009 18:22:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 22445 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2009 18:22:56 -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-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:22:52 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC0D13146; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:22:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A1DC9A34; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:22:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B310DBD.5000700@vmware.com> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:22:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20090624) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakob Engblom CC: 'Vladimir Prus' , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , 'Hui Zhu' Subject: Re: GDB MI Reverse Commands added [1 of 3] References: <00ce01ca265a$ccb66ca0$662345e0$@com> <200912161056.58856.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <008f01ca7f26$d9e97140$8dbc53c0$@com> <200912211305.55412.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <00af01ca82fa$a8b74b60$fa25e220$@com> In-Reply-To: <00af01ca82fa$a8b74b60$fa25e220$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 Jakob Engblom wrote: >>> Can someone familiar with the main reverse code illuminate me on how to call >> into the reverse code in teh right way? It seems that the reverse.c code has >> already changed from the code that was (bad style) copied into mi-main.c... >> which is exactly what we want to avoid in the first place. >>> Or is the logical thing to do from MI to just call >>> >>> static void >>> reverse_continue (char *args, int from_tty) >>> { >>> exec_reverse_once ("continue", args, from_tty); >>> } >>> >>> As the implementation of reverse continue? This does looks like the we >> submitted has rotted since the patch was submitted... >> >> Just to clarify -- who's got the ball here? Calling 'reverse_continue' sounds >> like reasonable thing to me >> if one wants to do a reverse continue ;-) > > I think the ball is mine. > > But I need to understand how to put the two things together, and for that I need > some help by the people who did reverse.c. That would be me, but I'm confused. What changed? Reverse.c didn't change (I don't think...) If MI used to work, why doesn't it work any more? > In particular, from MI, what should the "from_tty" argument be? AFAIK, that should always be zero. "from_tty" really means "from_CLI". > And the "args"? > MI args look different from the command-line arguments to me, so how can one > convert between the two? That would depend entirely on the command. But please let's start with my first question -- why are we having to do this? What is it that changed, making these changes necessary? > I also have a gdb 7.0-compatible version of the current patch brewing, the one > submitted in August was really against 6.8, and is thus really a bit out of > date. We are currently shipping this patch with Simics, along with a patched > gdb that supports reverse over MI for the benefit of our Eclipse integration. > > Best regards, > > /jakob > > _______________________________________________________ > > Jakob Engblom, PhD, Technical Marketing Manager > > Virtutech Direct: +46 8 690 07 47 > Drottningholmsvägen 22 Mobile: +46 709 242 646 > 11243 Stockholm Web: www.virtutech.com > Sweden > ________________________________________________________ > > > > >