From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10436 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2008 09:07:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 10333 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2008 09:07:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.186) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:06:13 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so1304687tib.12 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.110.43.18 with SMTP id q18mr6501143tiq.16.1223975170630; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.110.42.9 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:07:00 -0000 From: teawater To: "Jakob Engblom" Subject: Re: [RFA] Resubmit, reverse debugging [0/5] Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <003f01c92dd2$32944650$97bcd2f0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <48EC1781.2030005@vmware.com> <48EF93A5.7060808@vmware.com> <20081010175332.GA9028@caradoc.them.org> <48EFA065.5070108@vmware.com> <20081010185808.GA12193@caradoc.them.org> <48EFCFEE.3090007@vmware.com> <48F39ED3.8080603@vmware.com> <003f01c92dd2$32944650$97bcd2f0$@com> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 15:55, Jakob Engblom wrote: > Hi! > > This is Virtutech weighing in, since our use and implementation of revers= ibility > in gbd-serial has come up. We are perfectly fine with the commands chang= ing a > little, it is as people have noted not a particularly big deal what the p= recise > gdb-serial commands are, as long as they get decided on and remain fixed.= Which > is exactly why we like the current process of finally seeing reverse exec= ution > become part of the gdb mainline. > > "bc" and "bs" are tried and tested as far as we are concerned, and they a= ppear > to be still in place from what I can see. > > I have another question here: is there a way to check if the remote targe= t does > support reverse execution? Not all targets will, in our experience. So ha= ving > some way to detect that property of the target is quite useful. I don't think we need it. Cause if remote stub don't support "bc" and "bs", it can return empty rsp package to GDB mean that it don't support this command. GDB can output warning to user that fail. > > Best regards, > > /jakob > > _______________________________________________________ > > Jakob Engblom, PhD, Technical Marketing Manager > > Virtutech Direct: +46 8 690 07 47 > Drottningholmsv=E4gen 14 Mobile: +46 709 242 646 > 11243 Stockholm Web: www.virtutech.com > Sweden > ________________________________________________________ > > > >