From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32681 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2006 14:09:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 32674 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2006 14:09:34 -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; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:09:33 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-198-24.inter.net.il [80.230.198.24]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CJU02369 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:09:00 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: "Dave Korn" CC: msnyder@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, jrydberg@virtutech.com, fche@redhat.com, brolley@redhat.com, ebachalo@redhat.com In-reply-to: (dave.korn@artimi.com) Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: 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/msg00037.txt.bz2 > From: "Dave Korn" > Cc: , , , , , > Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:29:16 -0000 > > I _know_ you suggested a different prefix. > > And the reason *why* you suggested it, according to how I read your post, is > because the meaning of "reverse" would be unclear as to whether it always > meant the backwards direction, or whether it would swap directions if the > exec-direction flag swapped value, and you are concerned that this might be a > source of confusion, and you feel that the particular naming scheme you > suggest would clear up the confusion. No, I suggested to use ``backwards'' because it is unambiguous even if there's no flag.