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: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 07:03:52 +0200
- Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution
- References: <43BC376F.4000307@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:00:31 -0800
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> CC: Johan Rydberg <jrydberg@virtutech.com>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, Dave Brolley <brolley@redhat.com>, Eric Bachalo <ebachalo@redhat.com>
>
> So here is my proposed gdb user interface.
> 1) A set of new commands that mimic the existing ones,
> to include:
> reverse-step (rs)
> reverse-next (rn)
> reverse-continue (rc)
> reverse-finish (rf)
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'.
> set exec-direction [forward backward]
See, you used ``backward'' here, not ``reverse''.
> And here's my proposed remote protocol interface:
>
> New requests: "bs" (backward step), and "bc" (backward continue).
And here as well. So it looks like your instincts prefer ``back'',
like mine ;-)