Bug 10688

Summary:	rev abbreviation for reverse-search no longer works
Product:	gdb	Reporter:	Konrad Schwarz <konrad.schwarz>
Component:	gdb	Assignee:	Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED
Severity:	normal	CC:	gdb-prs, msnyder
Priority:	P2
Version:	6.8
Target Milestone:	7.2
Host:	GNU gdb (GDB; openSUSE 11.1) 6.8.50.20081120-cvs	Target:
Build:		Last reconfirmed:

Description Konrad Schwarz 2009-09-23 08:47:52 UTC

The addition of the reverse execution commands (reverse-search, ...) has broken
the command abbreviation "rev" for reverse-search.

On the other hand, the ninth edition of the GDB manual documents rev as the
official abbreviation for reverse-search.

Please reinstate this behavior!

Typing reverse-search just to disambiguate it from the reverse execution
commands, which are supported for a tiny number of platforms, is too painful
---yes, I know about autocompletion, but it doesn't/hasn't work/ed for all
platforms.  Furthermore, the original designers of GDB clearly intended and
documented rev to mean reverse-search, and it has for many releases.

s always means step, so GDB supports "hard-wired" abbreviations.

Thanks,

Konrad Schwarz

Comment 1 Konrad Schwarz 2009-09-23 08:49:22 UTC

Sorry, the above example for a reverse-execution command should have been
reverse-step.

Comment 2 Konrad Schwarz 2009-09-23 08:53:50 UTC

I just noticed that "fo" for forward-search is also broken.

Comment 3 teawater 2009-09-24 02:52:53 UTC

There is not "add_alias_cmd" for "reverse-search".

But can find a line "You can abbreviate this command as @code{rev}." in @kindex
reverse-search.

Michael, what do you think about this issue?

Comment 4 msnyder@vmware.com 2009-09-24 03:39:42 UTC

Subject: Re:  rev abbreviation for reverse-search no longer
 works

teawater at gmail dot com wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From teawater at gmail dot com  2009-09-24 02:52 -------
> There is not "add_alias_cmd" for "reverse-search".
> 
> But can find a line "You can abbreviate this command as @code{rev}." in @kindex
> reverse-search.
> 
> Michael, what do you think about this issue?

I agree -- reverse-search should have precedence, since it was 
implemented before the others.

Comment 5 Tom Tromey 2010-08-24 22:06:12 UTC

Fixed in 7.2.