Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 3/3: user interface / docs

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:56:15 -0700
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> >>>>+                                                 Behavior of 
> >>>>+ asynchronous signals depends on the target environment.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This is too vague.  Can we at least mention the possible behaviors, or
> >>>just the most common/expected ones?  The reader should get some idea
> >>>of what might happen.
> > 
> > You didn't change anything in response to this comment.
> 
> Well, I don't really have any idea what might happen --
> and it's really out of GDB's hands.  The target might do
> (almost literally) anything.  It might ignore asynchronous
> signals completely.  It might record and reproduce them
> faithfully.  It might stick them in randomly.

Well, for starters, even the above text should be better than
nothing.

However, don't you have at least one target that supports reverse
debugging?  If so, we have at least one specific type of behavior we
can describe, don't we?

> > You left "backward" in the text.
> 
> Um, yeah... Eli, the text already contains "backward" twice, and
> "backwards" only once, including *both* phrases "search backward"
> and "search backwards".  I'm not convinced one is more correct
> than the other, nor that a consistant usage is demonstrated in
> context.
> 
> That said, I guess I don't care all that strongly -- but "backward"
> sounds more correct to me here.

My local English grammar guru claims that ``backwards'' is the correct
usage; ``backward'' as an adjective means ``retarded''.