[discuss] Support for reverse-execution

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:42:45PM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote:
> - Which is fully your right to claim/believe; however noting the absence
>   of non-proprietary simulators with these capabilities (it's a little
>   unclear how one can presume that interfaces are likely most ideally
>   necessary or appropriate; and simply note that register and memory state
>   by definition is program state, which GDB already has direct access to).

That is incorrect.  There can be considerably more state.  For
instance, I understand from Dan's explanation that Simics will reply
external interrupt sources - at the same clock cycles where they would
otherwise have occurred.

>   As an aside and personal opinion, I happen believe it's not likely good
>   form to define "opaque" interfaces to non-FSF tools without at least
>   simultaneously implementing a non-opaque/proprietary solution (which is
>   I guess the same philosophical problem that I have with the sourcing of
>   any information, including potentially proprietary extended register/ISA
>   definitions through an "opaque" interface/wall).

It's no more opaque than the continue command is opaque.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC