From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22540 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2006 04:28:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 22532 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2006 04:28:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 04:28:50 +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 k064Smwf029576 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 23:28:48 -0500 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 k064Sl128484; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 23:28:47 -0500 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 k064Sj5N028353; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 23:28:45 -0500 Message-ID: <43BDF1D6.1040807@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 04:28:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, jrydberg@virtutech.com, fche@redhat.com, brolley@redhat.com, ebachalo@redhat.com Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution References: <43BC376F.4000307@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:00:31 -0800 >>From: Michael Snyder >>CC: Johan Rydberg , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Dave Brolley , Eric Bachalo >> >>So here is my proposed gdb user interface. >> 1) A set of new commands that mimic the existing ones, >> to include: >> reverse-step (rs) >> reverse-next (rn) >> reverse-continue (rc) >> reverse-finish (rf) > > > May I raise again the issue of names? That is, could we please > consider > > back-step > previous > back-continue > back-finish > > ? I think ``reverse'' is ambiguous: it doesn't actually say that we > are going backwards, just that we are reversing the direction, like > some kind of toggle. Reverse would be okay if we had some global > direction flag which ``reverse'' command would reverse. This is not > the case: these commands will _always_ go backwards, even if we > implement exec-direction and the user sets it to `backward'. Eli, I'm certainly willing to consider it, but as I review the previous discussion, it seems like you were the only proponant of these names. I do like "previous", perhaps as a synonym or alias. Come to that, alias-commands are easy, we could always add these names as alternatives. Anybody else feel that "back" or "backward" is a better prefix than "reverse"? Or perhaps that the syntax should be implemented as a true command prefix? With perhaps both alternatives allowed?