From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15921 invoked by alias); 20 May 2005 10:55:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15468 invoked from network); 20 May 2005 10:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 May 2005 10:55:10 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-247-87.inter.net.il [83.130.247.87]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id BGY13570 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 20 May 2005 13:54:58 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:55:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Michael Snyder Message-ID: <01c55d2a$Blat.v2.4$0a36cba0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20050519134150.GB15632@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 19 May 2005 09:41:50 -0400) Subject: Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <00c601c55747$860a3e80$aaa56b80@msnyder8600> <01c55783$Blat.v2.4$d6ab25c0@zahav.net.il> <20050519134150.GB15632@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00206.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:41:50 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > Not "reverse", "backwards" or "back". "Reverse" will become ambiguous > > once we have two possible directions. > > Actually I think "reverse" is a more logical term. Drivers don't > seem to get confused when they put a car into reverse One can learn anything, given enough practice. So the fact drivers can get accustomed to this doesn't mean it won't be harder for GDB users. Most people don't use GDB as frequently as they drive cars. > The program doesn't have a persistant direction. I envision that adding this could be a natural extension. Using "backwards" rather than "reverse" will save us from the ambiguity if we ever add such a feature. > "back-continue" and "back-next" just don't sound right. Neither does "reverse-next". Perhaps we should use "prev" instead. > Whichever name we settle on let's be consistent - if we use "reverse" > for the commands and documentation, we should use if for the target > hook too. Yes.