Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 1/3: target interface

["Michael Snyder" <msnyder at sonic dot net>]

Eli writes:
>> + /* Forward/reverse execution direction.
>> +    These will only be implemented by a target that supports reverse
execution.
>> + */
>> + #define target_get_execution_direction() \
>> +     (current_target.to_get_execdir ? \
>> +      (*current_target.to_get_execdir) () : EXEC_ERROR)
>
> Isn't it better if the default will be EXEC_FORWARD, not EXEC_ERROR?

Well, I wanted a way to probe and find out whether the target
implements these methods at all.  If you call get_execdir and
get back "error", you can report "sorry, this target doesn't support it".

I can see your argument, that you could simply report "yes,
you're going forward" -- but then the only way to probe
would be to call target_SET_execdir, and that seems too
intrusive for a probe.

Of course, I could just add a third target vector element,
but that seemed like overkill.  Perhaps I'm trying to be
too clever?

>> + /* Reverse execution.
>> +    FIXME: set up as a capability.  */
>> + static enum exec_direction_kind remote_execdir = EXEC_FORWARD;
>> +
>> + static enum exec_direction_kind remote_get_execdir (void)
>> + {
>> +   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;
>> + }
>> +
>> + static int remote_set_execdir (enum exec_direction_kind dir)
>> + {
>> +   if (remote_debug && info_verbose)
>> +     printf_filtered ("Set remote execdir: %s\n",
>> +        dir == EXEC_FORWARD ? "forward" :
>> +        dir == EXEC_REVERSE ? "reverse" :
>> +        "bad direction");
>> +
>> +   /* FIXME: check target for capability.  */
>> +   if (dir == EXEC_FORWARD || dir == EXEC_REVERSE)
>> +     return (remote_execdir = dir);
>> +   else
>> +     return EXEC_ERROR;
>> + }
>
> I don't understand these two methods--they don't seem to do anything
> that their names imply.  What am I missing?

It's deceptively simple.   ;-)

The two methods just get and set the value of a local mode variable,
remote_execdir.  That's all.  Then that variable is used by remote_wait
and remote_resume.