This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Return to Reverse Execution
- From: Paul Gilliam <pgilliam at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- 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 14:45:06 -0800
- Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution
- References: <43BC376F.4000307@redhat.com> <200601061431.00536.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> <20060106215255.GA25427@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: pgilliam at us dot ibm dot com
On Friday 06 January 2006 13:52, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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...
>
In that case, I guess 'rs' is bettern than 'bs'.... I get enough of that as it is 8-)