From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15503 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2006 07:38:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 15493 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Apr 2006 07:38:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:38:32 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-206-41.inter.net.il [80.230.206.41]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DDW60624 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:38:26 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:38:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Michael Snyder CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4445364F.506@redhat.com> (message from Michael Snyder on Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:56:15 -0700) Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 3/3: user interface / docs Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <442DAAD9.6080509@redhat.com> <44442877.1060401@redhat.com> <4445364F.506@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:56:15 -0700 > From: Michael Snyder > 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''.