From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12630 invoked by alias); 20 May 2005 20:51:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12478 invoked from network); 20 May 2005 20:51:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 May 2005 20:51:01 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DZESR-00027c-VR; Fri, 20 May 2005 16:51:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 20:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution Message-ID: <20050520205059.GA8032@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <00c601c55747$860a3e80$aaa56b80@msnyder8600> <01c55783$Blat.v2.4$d6ab25c0@zahav.net.il> <20050519134150.GB15632@nevyn.them.org> <01c55d2a$Blat.v2.4$0a36cba0@zahav.net.il> <20050520130342.GA25206@nevyn.them.org> <428E4D0A.7010104@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <428E4D0A.7010104@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00234.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 01:48:10PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > >It seems to me that if we give them unique names, the logical parallel > >with existing commands may be lost. But perhaps not. Let's try for > >the full set: > > continue reverse-continue > > step reverse-step > > next reverse-next > > stepi reverse-stepi > > nexti reverse-nexti > > until reverse-until > > advance reverse-advance > > finish reverse-finish > > > >I think that's the full set of reversible commands. > > reverse-return? Thank the lord, we don't have to worry about that one. It isn't possible. Not even kinda. I mean... uh... where would you go? Bookmarks fill a sort of similar role. > What if, in addition to what you describe above, we defined > a *prefix* command "backwards" -- which would simply modify > the other commands, eg. "backwards continue" (no hyphen) > would call continue with whatever parameters would make it > proceed backwards (or would call reverse-continue, or whatever). > > Maybe this is too many ways to do the same thing, but > it would cost us essentially nothing... > > Furthermore, we could implement as many of these interfaces > as we wish, hidden in "maintainer mode" or something, and > try them out -- see how we like them. True. I think that's a little excessive, but at this point there do seem to be three useful sets of names: reverse-continue, rcontinue, and rc. I'd support using all three. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC