rocallahan wrote: > > @clayborg as far as I can tell, the ball is currently in your court to > > respond to @jimingham ... thanks in advance > > Sounds like Jim is on the fence with a SetDirection + existing APIs and > adding a direction to the calls. I am fine with either approach as long as > Jim is ok with it because Jim is the code owner of the thread plans so he has > better knowledge. Let me know if I missed any comment I should respond to > other than this.
The initial disagreement here was that you advocated for a `ReverseContinue()` function (etc) while Jim didn't want to add `Reverse` versions of functions. It sounds like you're on board with the latter now, so thanks for that. So now the question is whether to expose a persistent "current direction" flag or pass the direction as a parameter (defaulting to "forward") to each call to a function that advances execution. > It really comes down to how the GUI and command line commands work for > reverse debugging. So a few questions: > > * Do GUI debuggers have different buttons for reverse stepping and > running? Or is there a direction button and then the existing process control > buttons remain the same (reverse continue, reverse step in/out/over) I've only seen them use separate buttons, see e.g. [CLion + UndoDB](https://blog.jetbrains.com/clion/2016/09/undo-for-clion/). > * For command line do we have different comments for forward and reverse, > or a direction command followed by normal commands? GDB [supports both](https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb.html/Reverse-Execution.html). However, in practice I've never seen anyone use `set exec-direction`. My LLDB CLI patch adds a `-R` option to `thread continue`. > If the GUI and command line have separate buttons and commands, then we > should probably go with adding the direction to each API. OK, then I believe my current code is satisfactory. > I could see us adding more options to the `SBThreadStepOptions` API in the > future and then our public API for `SBThread::StepOver` doesn't need to > change. Sure. My current code doesn't support reverse stepping and the number of options to the `Continue()` APIs is small (zero currently for `SBProcess::Continue()`) so this isn't an issue yet. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99736 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
