Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 1/3: target interface

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:53:29PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> >It thinks that the attempt to step has succeeded and that the program
> >is now running.  That's pretty messy failing.
> 
> Agreed, of course.  Well, this code in remote_wait...
> 
> 1.1 (shebs 16-Apr-99):      default:
> 1.1 (shebs 16-Apr-99):        warning ("Invalid remote reply: %s", buf);
> 1.1 (shebs 16-Apr-99):        continue;
> 1.1 (shebs 16-Apr-99):      }
> 
> *... has been essentially untouched since the public repository was
> created.  I could trace it back further, but my gut feeling is that
> it is basically untested.  I mean, if we say "continue" here,
> of course it's going to hang...  we've just consumed the target's
> reply, so it's not going to send us anything else.  Generally, you
> send one command, you get one reply.
> 
> My inclination is to call error here, instead of continue.
> But of course I know of no way to test the effects, except
> for the experiment you've just done.
> 
> How does that strike you?

Well, I've got no problem with that, but I don't think it's enough to
settle this.  "error: Invalid remote reply: " (the buffer will be
empty) is not a very informative error message.  We want to say that
reverse execution is not supported.  See my other message about when.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery