[RFA] Reverse debugging, part 3/3: user interface / docs

[Michael Snyder]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> FWIW, I've got no opinions on this patch.  The content looks fine.  My
> only concern is that I don't much like "set" variables which succeed or
> fail depending on the target - we can switch targets unexpectedly.
> 
> Can we just give the error in proceed if the target can't run in
> reverse?

You mean, "and not give an error when you say "set exec-dir"?

Well here's the thing: I've had experience with something
very similar*, and the users complained.  They wanted to
know sooner if there was a problem.

* Tracepoints.  You don't find out that the remote target can't
support them until you say continue.