Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse

Joel Brobecker
2008-09-16T20:11:12Z

> And I believe that consistent behavior / semantics should be:
>
> If you tell me that you are stopped at instruction 1000,
> regardless of whether you were going forward or backward
> when you got there, then I will expect that if I tell you
> to execute forward, you will execute the instruction at
> 1000.

This makes total sense to me. I think I would be very confused
by the debugger if I started going back and forth with a debugger
that didn't follow the semantics above.

--
Joel