This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Return to Reverse Execution
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Paul Gilliam <pgilliam at us dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, Johan Rydberg <jrydberg at virtutech dot com>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, Dave Brolley <brolley at redhat dot com>, Eric Bachalo <ebachalo at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:52:55 -0500
- Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution
- References: <43BC376F.4000307@redhat.com> <20060106195720.GB18951@nevyn.them.org> <200601061431.00536.pgilliam@us.ibm.com>
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:31:00PM -0800, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> My $0.02:
>
> On Friday 06 January 2006 11:57, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:00:31PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > So here is my proposed gdb user interface.
> > > 1) A set of new commands that mimic the existing ones,
> > > to include:
> > > reverse-step (rs)
> > > reverse-next (rn)
> > > reverse-continue (rc)
> > > reverse-finish (rf)
> >
> > I'm fine with these names. I think that we are not going to reach a
> > consensus on whether "reverse" or "back" is better, but I don't think that
> > means we should offer both; I think we should just pick one, use it
> > consistently, and document it consistently.
> >
> 'back' has 57% fewer keystrokes than 'reverse'.
I intend to use the two-character variants all the time in practice...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery