From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4976 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2009 20:29:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 4967 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Aug 2009 20:29:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:29:43 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A69105BB; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:29:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70C2710576; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:29:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mdrmt-0003SO-96; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:29:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Jakob Engblom , 'Hui Zhu' , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Simics & reverse execution Message-ID: <20090819202939.GA13270@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Jakob Engblom , 'Hui Zhu' , "gdb@sourceware.org" References: <002101ca1f2e$746e1ad0$5d4a5070$@com> <200908171251.07179.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4A899E2E.6080203@vmware.com> <00b801ca1f74$e5610a90$b0231fb0$@com> <4A89B7E4.9010804@vmware.com> <027701ca209f$64c71ce0$2e5556a0$@com> <010601ca2106$90d41920$b27c4b60$@com> <4A8C5997.1080705@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A8C5997.1080705@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:59:19PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > >And that a probe for reversibility in gbd-remote would be a worthwhile addition > >to the protocol. > > Sounds like a good idea. Maybe a 'q' query? > "qReverse", maybe? Just use qSupported? (I feel like we've discussed this before... :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery