Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution

Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-21T00:58:50Z

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:42:45PM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - Which is fully your right to claim/believe; however noting the absence
> of non-proprietary simulators with these capabilities (it's a little
> unclear how one can presume that interfaces are likely most ideally
> necessary or appropriate; and simply note that register and memory state
> by definition is program state, which GDB already has direct access to).

That is incorrect. There can be considerably more state. For
instance, I understand from Dan's explanation that Simics will reply
external interrupt sources - at the same clock cycles where they would
otherwise have occurred.

> As an aside and personal opinion, I happen believe it's not likely good
> form to define "opaque" interfaces to non-FSF tools without at least
> simultaneously implementing a non-opaque/proprietary solution (which is
> I guess the same philosophical problem that I have with the sourcing of
> any information, including potentially proprietary extended register/ISA
> definitions through an "opaque" interface/wall).

It's no more opaque than the continue command is opaque.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC