This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Return to Reverse Execution
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- Cc: msnyder at redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, jrydberg at virtutech dot com, fche at redhat dot com, brolley at redhat dot com, ebachalo at redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:09:01 +0200
- Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution
- References: <SERRANOe4t1wGFLMzN700000257@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
> Cc: <msnyder@redhat.com>, <gdb@sources.redhat.com>, <jrydberg@virtutech.com>, <fche@redhat.com>, <brolley@redhat.com>, <ebachalo@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 12:29:16 -0000
>
> I _know_ you suggested a different prefix.
>
> And the reason *why* you suggested it, according to how I read your post, is
> because the meaning of "reverse" would be unclear as to whether it always
> meant the backwards direction, or whether it would swap directions if the
> exec-direction flag swapped value, and you are concerned that this might be a
> source of confusion, and you feel that the particular naming scheme you
> suggest would clear up the confusion.
No, I suggested to use ``backwards'' because it is unambiguous even if
there's no flag.