From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10195 invoked by alias); 20 May 2005 20:48:17 -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 10178 invoked from network); 20 May 2005 20:48:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 May 2005 20:48:15 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4KKmEAs030700 for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 16:48:14 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4KKmEO00814; Fri, 20 May 2005 16:48:14 -0400 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j4KKmBa8008999; Fri, 20 May 2005 16:48:12 -0400 Message-ID: <428E4D0A.7010104@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 20:48:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution 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> In-Reply-To: <20050520130342.GA25206@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 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? > Which of them > don't work? I agree that reverse-next is a little weak, but everything > else seems OK. And we aren't limited to one name for things! We could > add "prev" as an alias to "next" if you like that. I like these, as being the most informative, with shorter and perhaps more mnemonic versions (such as prev) as aliases. Eli, you should like these because they're somewhat self-documenting (not that we'd want to skimp on the real docs) > We could use r-prefixed commands. I don't think that helps much, since > we're already planning to offer abbreviations like "rs" and "rni", but > they're my second-favorite choice: > rcontinue, rstep, rnext, rstepi, rnexti, runtil, radvance, rfinish > > We could use "backwards" for everything. Those mostly sound right, > except that backwards has some unfortunate connotations. 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. > I think > that advance and finish come out as particularly odd: > backwards-continue, backwards-step, backwards-next, backwards-stepi, > backwards-nexti, backwards-until, backwards-advance, backwards-finish > > This one's kind of nice, we could use suffixes instead. But > next-backwards is very awkward: > continue-backwards, step-backwards, next-backwards, stepi-backwards, > nexti-backwards, until-backwards, advance-backwards, finish-backwards >