From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-43704-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1641 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2006 09:15:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 1632 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2006 09:15:49 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:15:47 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-211-50.inter.net.il [83.130.211.50]) 	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id DZQ98040 (AUTH halo1); 	Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:15:35 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:15:00 -0000
Message-Id: <ulku3xn0j.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <44442877.1060401@redhat.com> (message from Michael Snyder on 	Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:44:55 -0700)
Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 3/3: user interface / docs
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <442DAAD9.6080509@redhat.com> <ufykxa1jq.fsf@gnu.org> <44442877.1060401@redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:44:55 -0700
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Please see revised patch, attached.
> OK now?

The corrections you made are okay, but you left two of my suggestions
unhandled, please at least explain why.

> >>+                                                 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.

> >>+ Run the program backward until control reaches the start of a
> >>+ different source line
> > 
> > 
> > Isn't it better to say
> > 
> >   Run the program backwards until control reaches the first instruction
> >   of a different source line
> > 
> > ?  In any case, "backwards", not "backward".

You left "backward" in the text.