Re: GDB record patch 0.1.3.1 for GDB-6.8 release

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>]

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 11:55 +0800, Tea wrote:
> Agree with Daniel.
> I think current way is better than include Linux kernel header files.
> 
> To compile GDB with Linux KERNEL? I think it will make compile GDB not
> very easy. If the Linux Kernel change. The user need re-compile the
> GDB?
> Or add Linux Kernel files to GDB directory? It looks not very
> professional. And maybe will cause some copyright problem.
> 
> And this types size will not change very continually. The GLIBC use it
> too. The kernel more like add new types than change the old types.

There is another possibility.  You might build something 
resembling gdbserver, and put the record/playback functionality
in there.  Have gdb talk to it by the remote serial protocol
(over a socket, of course).

There is an old branch in the cvs repository where we have
stashed away a version of gdb that has some extra "reverse"
syntax in the remote protocol.

This would have the advantage of a clear separation layer, 
so that gdb would not have to be "poluted" by foreign header
files with different copyrights and licensing, plus keeping
a big chunk of complex code separate from gdb itself.

Plus, you could now reverse-debug from one host to another, 
even across different architectures.

Just an idea...

Michael