This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 3/3: user interface / docs
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:56:15 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 3/3: user interface / docs
- References: <442DAAD9.6080509@redhat.com> <ufykxa1jq.fsf@gnu.org> <44442877.1060401@redhat.com> <ulku3xn0j.fsf@gnu.org>
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:44:55 -0700
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Please see revised patch, attached.
OK now?
The corrections you made are okay, but you left two of my suggestions
unhandled, please at least explain why.
+ Behavior of
+ asynchronous signals depends on the target environment.
This is too vague. Can we at least mention the possible behaviors, or
just the most common/expected ones? The reader should get some idea
of what might happen.
You didn't change anything in response to this comment.
Well, I don't really have any idea what might happen --
and it's really out of GDB's hands. The target might do
(almost literally) anything. It might ignore asynchronous
signals completely. It might record and reproduce them
faithfully. It might stick them in randomly.
From the research that I've done into other reverse-execution
implementations, this is an area that's not well understood by
anybody.
+ Run the program backward until control reaches the start of a
+ different source line
Isn't it better to say
Run the program backwards until control reaches the first instruction
of a different source line
? In any case, "backwards", not "backward".
You left "backward" in the text.
Um, yeah... Eli, the text already contains "backward" twice, and
"backwards" only once, including *both* phrases "search backward"
and "search backwards". I'm not convinced one is more correct
than the other, nor that a consistant usage is demonstrated in
context.
That said, I guess I don't care all that strongly -- but "backward"
sounds more correct to me here.
If you like, I'll change it to "Run the program in reverse"... ;-)