Re: reverse for GDB/MI

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> It seems to be that it's best to have some structure in MI commands and flags.
> Say, we have continue and reverse-continue. What if you want some other form
> of continue, say "continue for N seconds". Should we have then:
>
>        continue
>        reverse-continue
>        timed-continue
>        reverse-timed-continue
>
> ? That would be fairly cumbersome. Also, the --reverse option can be documented
> with a single paragraph, whilst individual commands should all have individual
> documentation.

timed-continue could take a negative argument to go backwards.

[fwiw, I'm in the camp that dislikes --reverse too]

> To summarize, I would like the patch to be adjusted in the following way:
>
>        1. Use --reverse option
>        2. Arrange for --exec-step, and similar, to ignore 'set exec-direction',
>        since all new MI commands should strive to be stateless. This, of course,
>        will mean that one cannot get existing frontend to do reverse step by
>        typing a command into CLI console, but it is not obvious if existing
>        frontend will work without modification anyway.

Can we remove exec-direction altogether?
1/2 :-)