From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9919 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2009 08:23:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 9910 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Sep 2009 08:23:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:23:16 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Mil7Z-0003hB-Op for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:23:13 +0200 Received: from h86-62-88-129.ln.rinet.ru ([86.62.88.129]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:23:13 +0200 Received: from vladimir by h86-62-88-129.ln.rinet.ru with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:23:13 +0200 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: GDB MI Reverse Commands added [3 of 3] Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <00d001ca265a$ddd0c800$99725800$@com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 Jakob Engblom wrote: > Final part: the test suite for gdb-MI reverse debugging commands. Attached as a > file, to be put in [gdb]/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/ The file should be called mi-reverse.exp, I think, because mi2- files are supposed to test that whatever was once announced as MI2 is not broken. And this is new development. Likewise, set MIFLAGS "-i=mi2" should be: set MIFLAGS "-i=mi" Also, I would appreciate if this: # Test exec-reverse-next # FIXME: Why does it take 2 next commands to get back to the # previous line? were somehow addressed. I am not familiar with details of reverse behaviour, so I did not even try to check that the tested commands and locations, etc, are right. This is OK with the above fixes and the fixes asked for by Michael. Thanks, Volodya