This isn't a work around right? You should be triggering your reverse step or reverse continue using a "process reverse-continue" or "thread reverse-step" right? If you do this, everything will just work. There should be no way this happens automagically without user interaction. Am I missing something?
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Vadim Chugunov <vadi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, this `bs` + `stepi` dance is the only workaround I found so far. > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Greg Clayton <clayb...@gmail.com > <mailto:clayb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > There is a standard for reverse stepping where the GDB remote protocol was > extended to do the reverse stepping. See: > > https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Packets.html > <https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Packets.html> > > Look for "reverse" in the text. They added "bc" for reverse continue and "bs" > for reverse step. We should be using these if possible. > > > >> On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:00 AM, Ted Woodward <ted.woodw...@codeaurora.org >> <mailto:ted.woodw...@codeaurora.org>> wrote: >> >> Perhaps a manual packet that tells your remote server that the next “s” >> packet is a reverse step, then run the lldb command “si”. >>
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
