Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

>>> 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.
>
> - Then there seems no need to define a reverse-xxxx set of commands
> at the GDB/target-stub boundary (unless I misunderstand the purposed
> of the earlier threads of dialog)?

<tag-dont-take-this-as-criticism>
The user interface makes no *assumption* about the target
interface, but that doesn't mean that the target doesn't
*also* need an interface.  Both have been discussed in this
thread, but they're not tied together.

We have, for instance, discussed six or seven user commands
(not counting bookmarks), but AFAIK only two target interface
commands should be needed to support them -- "rc/bc" and "rs/bs".

There's a third interface we've discussed too -- the interface
between core-gdb and the target or back-end component (eg. but
not limited to remote.c).  We might, for instance, add a single
new method to the target vector, eg. "to_resume_backwards"
(or we might just add a direction parameter to the existing one).
That method could then be added to, for instance, target sim.

All that said, I'm not taking issue with your idea.
I do think there might be a generic way for gdb to
do something like dropping a checkpoint.  I just don't
think its mutually exclusive with this discussion.

If you want to propose it in a separate thread, I'd be
thrilled to talk about it.