From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-35271-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 24573 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2009 07:24:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 24524 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Aug 2009 07:24:04 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from dns.vtab.com (HELO oden.vtab.com) (62.20.90.195)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:23:56 +0000
Received: from oden.vtab.com (oden.vtab.com [127.0.0.1]) 	by oden.vtab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFBA26EE49; 	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:23:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from polhem (unknown [62.20.90.206]) 	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) 	(No client certificate requested) 	by oden.vtab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C27326EEF9; 	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:23:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Jakob Engblom" <jakob@virtutech.com>
To: "'Pedro Alves'" <pedro@codesourcery.com>, 	<gdb@sourceware.org>
References: <002001ca1f0e$4c9b74a0$e5d25de0$@com> <002101ca1f2e$746e1ad0$5d4a5070$@com> <200908171251.07179.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200908171255.28644.pedro@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200908171255.28644.pedro@codesourcery.com>
Subject: RE: gdb reverse execution: how to actually run tests for it?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:34:00 -0000
Message-ID: <024c01ca209e$02bfdb50$083f91f0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2

> > In any case, for the cases a board file is needed for testing
> > reverse, it would be nice to have that explained in the
> > wiki (or somewhere else).
> 
> I should add that it is a shame that the remote targets
> don't report support for reverse until GDB tries it first...
> 
> How bad is the failure mode in the reverse tests if the target
> does not support reverse at all?  Can't we try a simple
> probing-for-support reverse test and if that fails skip the
> rest of the reverse tests?  That would likely get rid of all
> the current needs for a hacked board file.

I think remote targets need to be able to report their features, including
reversible debug. 

/jakob