Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Paul Schlie wrote:
> Alternatively to attempting to specify an interface to a lone commercial
> reversible simulator,

I don't think that's what we're doing -- these commands are meant
to be generically useful, as soon as anyone else can support
backwards execution.

> or presume the intelligence need be "remote" to GDB;

We're not doing that either -- the user interface makes no
assumption about the target interface.

> I wonder if it may be more sensible to consider initially defining the basic
> generic facilities by which GDB may directly support undoable/reversible
> execution, and checkpoint features.

Well, that's an idea that some of us (me, at least...) have
thought about too -- but it's, if not orthogonal, at least
separable from this discussion.  If gdb asks the target to
step backwards or continue backwards, we really don't care
how the target accomplishes this (eg. whether by restoring
a saved state, or actually reversing the execution of individual
instructions).

I've thought all along that the "bookmark" idea is separable
from the "run backwards" idea.