This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 2/5
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 20:49:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 2/5
- References: <48E3CCE2.3000001@vmware.com>
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 20:17:54, Michael Snyder wrote:
> + Â/* TODO: check target for capability. Â*/
Can we address this? If you want to be able to query for support,
it would be a matter of defining a new qSupported feature.
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 20:17:54, Michael Snyder wrote:
> - status->kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED;
> - status->value.sig = TARGET_SIGNAL_0;
> + if (buf[1] == '0' && buf[2] == '6')
> + {
> + status->kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_HISTORY;
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + status->kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED;
> + status->value.sig = TARGET_SIGNAL_0;
> + }
This isn't really an error, it's a defined reply, so it
looks a bit strange to me to be using an error number.
Is there a reason this can't be reported with a T stop reply and
a special "register", like "library" -> TARGET_WAITKIND_LOADED is?
AFAICT, nothing else in the remote implementation relies
on defined error numbers currently --- annoying at times, but
doesn't seem to apply here.
+
+static enum exec_direction_kind remote_get_execdir (void)
Function name on the first column please.
+{
+ if (remote_debug && info_verbose)
+ printf_filtered ("remote execdir is %s\n",
+ remote_execdir == EXEC_FORWARD ? "forward" :
+ remote_execdir == EXEC_REVERSE ? "reverse" :
+ "unknown");
+ return remote_execdir;
+}
This should be made i18n aware.
Similarly in remote_set_execdir.
No new vCont packets -> no plans on reverse + multi-threading ? :-)
--
Pedro Alves