This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 12:40:27 +0300
- Subject: Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution
- References: <428E5BD5.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:51:17 -0700
> From: Michael Snyder <email@example.com>
> Make me a third person who thought of it independantly.
> Look at it this way -- once we've implemented the reverse-x
> command set, adding this would be trivial; just a single
> set/show mode variable. Then we could evaluate both, or even
> leave it to the user to choose.
The problem is, once we implement such a mode, the word "reverse"
becomes ambiguous: it no longer unambiguously says that we go
That prospect was the original reason I mentioned the possibility of
introducing such a mode in the future. And that was the reason I
still think it's better, at least in principle, to say "backwards" or
"back", because that's unambiguous.