From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-58672-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9159 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2008 06:39:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 9145 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2008 06:39:45 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.187)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:38:56 +0000
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so2408119tib.12         for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.110.109.12 with SMTP id h12mr4509173tic.34.1221719932773;         Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.110.42.9 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <daef60380809172338p2810a8cekac8c5d42d1d90ca3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 06:39:00 -0000
From: teawater <teawater@gmail.com>
To: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@vmware.com>
Subject: Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" <drow@false.org>,  	"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
In-Reply-To: <48D148D9.1080401@vmware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48CEAA05.8050006@vmware.com> 	 <daef60380809152121n741b14f0ue69a8456108792b0@mail.gmail.com> 	 <48CFFE21.8030709@vmware.com> 	 <daef60380809170831p283405f3ybcad8165fa046261@mail.gmail.com> 	 <48D148D9.1080401@vmware.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-09/txt/msg00383.txt.bz2

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:13, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> teawater wrote:
>>
>> Agree with you.
>>
>> And I think Maybe need add a test for it.
>> I think is:
>> 1. There is a statement that set the value of a variable.
>> For example:
>> a = 1;
>> 2. Before this statement, the value of this variable is not same with new
>> value.
>> 3. Set a breakpoint on this statement, And check the value of this
>> variable when forward execute and reverse execute program break by
>> this breakpoint. If the value is the new value, fail. If is the old
>> value, pass.
>
> That's the idea behind this test.
> Do you think this test does what you want?
> If not, what would you add to it?
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-09/msg00365.html
>
>

I think it's OK. Sorry I send this mail before read this test RFC.

Thanks,
Hui