This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Resubmit reverse debugging [4/5]
On Thursday 09 October 2008 03:46:58, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Wait, what does your remark about the frame #0 special
> > case mean then?
>
> This stuff makes your head spin, eh?
Yeah, spins in reverse.
> OK, so this is the inverse of the example that I posted for Joel
> (about stepping into a function backward). This is "what happens
> if I say "finish" and I'm going backward?"
>
> So consider the function:
>
> 18: int foo (int a)
> 19: {
> 20: return a + 1;
> 21: }
>
> Now if I'm at line 20 and I want to finish forward, I have to
> find the caller, set a bp AFTER the call, run to it, then
> extract the return value for printing.
>
> If I want to "reverse-finish", I still find the caller, but
> now I want to set a breakpoint BEFORE (or at) the call insn.
> I'm going to execute backward thru the call, rather than
> execute forward thru the return.
Thanks for the explanations.
Ok, I had understood that correctly then.
> My "special case" comment had nothing to do with frame #0.
Ok, it's probably too late here to be thinking, but I found this
frame #0 reference confusing:
+ Note that this can only happen at frame #0, since there's
+ no way that a function up the stack can have a return address
+ that's equal to its entry point. */
> The special case is that, if I happen to be starting from
> the first instruction of the callee (the label or entry point),
> then there is no need to set a breakpoint. I can just do
> a singlestep, and that will take me to the caller.
>
Yep, that I got too. That's what I was refering to when
I mentioned a "begin" command. A "begin" would do:
- execute backward until I'm at the start of the function
(after prologue)
- If I want to go to the caller (like your finish), I do
another reverse "step" or "next".
No need for the extra single-step special case,
> Also, when I am going backward, there is no return value
> for me to extract when I get back to the caller, since the
> callee is not returning.
Or this special case.
> As for the command name, I'm still not gonna argue about that. ;-)
So, it wasn't just about the command name. ;-)
> I just figured that a logical starting place would be, we have to
> know what we're going to do in the case of each existing command
> if we need to do it backward.
Ok.
Thanks again for the explanations.
--
Pedro Alves