This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Return to Reverse Execution
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, jrydberg at virtutech dot com, fche at redhat dot com, brolley at redhat dot com, ebachalo at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 11:01:58 +0200
- Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution
- References: <43BC376F.4000307@redhat.com> <u8xtvjmfb.fsf@gnu.org> <43BDF1D6.1040807@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:28:06 -0800
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, jrydberg@virtutech.com, fche@redhat.com, brolley@redhat.com, ebachalo@redhat.com
>
> > 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.
That might be so, but please note that you yourself used ``back'' and
``backward'' in almost every other place in your description except
the command names. Doesn't this tell you something?