This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 2/5


Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 02:10:18PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
Pedro Alves wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 20:17:54, Michael Snyder wrote:
+ /* TODO: check target for capability. */
Can we address this?  If you want to be able to query for support,
it would be a matter of defining a new qSupported feature.
OK -- but what about existing targets that support reverse,
but don't know about the qSupported query?

When I put that comment in, I probably intended an implied
question-mark -- that is, I wasn't asserting that a query
would be useful, just wondering aloud...

All qSupported probes can be overridden by a manual setting. I don't feel particularly bad about forcing people to update, if there's a workaround - that's part of getting protocol changes merged :-)

I see. So we would just make them type "set reverse-supported on" or something like that.

However, I'm not completely sure it's necessary in this case.  When do
we check for capability?  If it's only at the appropriate run/continue
command, then probing is OK - though this would make it hard to,
e.g., automatically enable IDE buttons.

Well, MI isn't in there yet, though I've heard from a possible contributor. How about if we put qSupported into a later patch as well?

Nothing wrong with the present target implementers being
supported in the first version...


Yeah, I hear ya -- I'm not crazy about it either, and I
don't think I knew about the idea of adding new tags onto
the "T" packet two years ago.

But... the discussion about the remote protocol for this
happened back in '06.  There are now targets out in the field
that implement it this way.  It would be bad form to break them...

I'm pretty sure nothing about this error was in that discussion. At least, I think I would have objected at the time.

You're probably right. But it was certainly in my earlier patch submissions.






Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]