From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5994 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2006 05:04:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 5986 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2006 05:04:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 05:04:30 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-146-4.inter.net.il [80.230.146.4]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CJL00839 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:03:53 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 05:04:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Michael Snyder CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, jrydberg@virtutech.com, fche@redhat.com, brolley@redhat.com, ebachalo@redhat.com In-reply-to: <43BC376F.4000307@redhat.com> (message from Michael Snyder on Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:00:31 -0800) Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <43BC376F.4000307@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00016.txt.bz2 > 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'. > set exec-direction [forward backward] See, you used ``backward'' here, not ``reverse''. > And here's my proposed remote protocol interface: > > New requests: "bs" (backward step), and "bc" (backward continue). And here as well. So it looks like your instincts prefer ``back'', like mine ;-)