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: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
Cc: teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:10:29 -0700
Subject: Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
References: <48CEAA05.8050006@vmware.com> <daef60380809152121n741b14f0ue69a8456108792b0@mail.gmail.com> <48CFFE21.8030709@vmware.com>

> And I believe that consistent behavior / semantics should be:
> 
>    If you tell me that you are stopped at instruction 1000,
>    regardless of whether you were going forward or backward
>    when you got there, then I will expect that if I tell you
>    to execute forward, you will execute the instruction at
>    1000.

This makes total sense to me. I think I would be very confused
by the debugger if I started going back and forth with a debugger
that didn't follow the semantics above.

-- 
Joel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [reverse RFA] no singlestep-over-BP in reverse
  - From: Michael Snyder

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: Michael Snyder

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