[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Implement basic support for reverse-continue (PR #112079)

[via lldb-commits]

jimingham wrote:

> FWIW, I also think that having "continue" go sometimes backwards would be very confusing. If we only have forward execution, then the difference between "run forwards" and "resume the current thread plan (forwards)" is not big. However, the difference between "run forwards" and "resume current plan **backwards**" is huge, and I think we should avoid the possibility of confusing the two (for example, by requiring an explicit direction argument if the current thread plan wants to go backwards).

The problem I see with this is that the two operations really are:

1) Continue to do whatever I was doing in the direction I was doing it
2) Reverse direction

When you reverse direction, you suspend and at some point possibly invalidate all the plans you were doing going in the previous direction, and start building up a new stack of intentions.  That is going to happen each time you switch directions.

That's why it makes more sense to me to have `continue` mean (1), and to have a more explicit gesture for switching direction.  

I must admit, I'm not so moved by "how much this will surprise people who don't know how lldb works..."  It doesn't seem like such a difficult concept we should be bound by that... 

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112079