GDB MI Reverse Commands added [3 of 3]
Tue Dec 15 19:43:00 GMT 2009
Jakob Engblom wrote:
>> The file should be called mi-reverse.exp, I think, because mi2- files are
>> supposed to test
>> that whatever was once announced as MI2 is not broken. And this is new
>> development. Likewise,
Oops, sorry -- revised part 3 of MI reverse patch.
>> set MIFLAGS "-i=mi2"
>> should be:
>> set MIFLAGS "-i=mi"
>> Also, I would appreciate if this:
>> # Test exec-reverse-next
>> # FIXME: Why does it take 2 next commands to get back to the
>> # previous line?
>> were somehow addressed. I am not familiar with details of reverse behaviour,
> so I
>> did not even try to check that the tested commands and locations, etc, are
> Since this is tested on top of process record, I think I am not the best person
> to answer... but in general, what tends to happen in reverse in my experience is
> We have lines of code (or instructions)
> And we stop with a breakpoint in line B.
> We are then at the end of B, or in the middle of B, in the execution.
> Then, doing reverse one step/instruction/line will move you to the start of B.
> And another step/instruction/line moves you to before A was executed.
> Does that make sense for process record?
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the Gdb-patches