Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution

[Johan Rydberg <jrydberg at virtutech dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> Johan, when I sketched out some algorithms for implementing these
> commands, I got the feeling that this was not a good way to do it.
> There are just too many ways to jump, and they can be pretty tricky to
> recognize on some architectures.  PowerPC is easy, but it's a little
> more complicated to disassemble starting from the end of an instruction
> on ia32.  Here's another one that requires absolutely no target support:
> [...]

Yes, I'm well aware of this.

> [...]
> i.e. build reverse-next on top of reverse-finish.  reverse-finish
> should take you to the intermediate caller in a tail call situation,
> not to the previous frame on the stack.

This approach has also crossed my mind, and minimizing the need for
target dependent code is worthwhile goal.  I'll see if I can hack
something up during the weekend.  I guess the changes should not be
that big.

~j