This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com 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] |
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 20:30:16 +1000 From: Russell Shaw <rjshaw@netspace.net.au> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
It'd be better to store the state of every step in to a circular buffer of size 1000 (the user could change that size with a command).
When you say ``it'd be better'', what is the alternative that you think is worse than your suggestion? What I wrote didn't say how many previous states to remember, nor what data structure to use for that.
Also, I hope you don't mean ``every step'', but rather ``every stop''. What I suggested didn't involve single-stepping the program, so GDB can only collect the target state when the target stops, not after each instruction.
Yes, that's what i meant (every step). It could be configureable so that the policy can be set to every user-stop, every function call, or disabled alltogether. The idea is that you could run from main() until a segfault happens, then "back 10" and step thru the last few actions.
That way, there's only one backwards command to remember, and maybe a command to change the history buffer size.
That's essentially what I suggested: to have a single command to go back to one of the places where we have enough information to restore the target state.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |