This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse

From: teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>
To: teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>, "Michael Snyder" <msnyder at vmware dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:34:21 +0800
Subject: Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
References: <48CEAA05.8050006@vmware.com> <daef60380809152121n741b14f0ue69a8456108792b0@mail.gmail.com> <daef60380809160803x593029e2oa64556750b0ad3f6@mail.gmail.com> <20080916152159.GA23026@caradoc.them.org>

Maybe we can make user have more choices.
Of course, some of target can just support one choice.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 23:21, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:03:42PM +0800, teawater wrote:
>> 1. The instruction in this address already reverse executed, it make
>> program status back to before forward execute this instruction.
>
> I like this approach; I believe it's what we used in the qemu reverse
> implementation also.  It means that you have the same state when
> you're pointing at the start of a source line: it has not yet executed.
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery
>

References:
- [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
  - From: Michael Snyder
- Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
  - From: teawater
- Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
  - From: teawater
- Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]