RE: GDB MI Reverse Commands added [3 of 3]

["Jakob Engblom" <jakob at virtutech dot com>]

> The file should be called mi-reverse.exp, I think, because mi2- files are
> supposed to test
> that whatever was once announced as MI2 is not broken. And this is new
> development. Likewise,

Done. 
 
>         set MIFLAGS "-i=mi2"
> 
> should be:
> 
>         set MIFLAGS "-i=mi"

Done.

> Also, I would appreciate if this:
> 
>     # Test exec-reverse-next
>     # FIXME: Why does it take 2 next commands to get back to the
>     #        previous line?
> 
> were somehow addressed. I am not familiar with details of reverse behaviour,
so I
> did not even try to check that the tested commands and locations, etc, are
right.

Since this is tested on top of process record, I think I am not the best person
to answer... but in general, what tends to happen in reverse in my experience is
this:

We have lines of code (or instructions)

A
B

And we stop with a breakpoint in line B.

We are then at the end of B, or in the middle of B, in the execution.

Then, doing reverse one step/instruction/line will move you to the start of B. 

And another step/instruction/line moves you to before A was executed. 

Does that make sense for process record?

/jakob

Attachment: mi-reverse.exp
Description: Binary data