From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8534 invoked by alias); 21 May 2008 18:35:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 8526 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2008 18:35:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 May 2008 18:35:24 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B29532C019 for ; Wed, 21 May 2008 15:10:56 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m4LIZJsr811042 for ; Wed, 21 May 2008 15:35:19 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m4LIZFAp023474 for ; Wed, 21 May 2008 15:35:15 -0300 Received: from [9.18.202.120] ([9.18.202.120]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4LIZFxw023466; Wed, 21 May 2008 15:35:15 -0300 Subject: Re: GDB record patch 0.1.3.1 for GDB-6.8 release From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Michael Snyder Cc: Tea , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <1211393440.3601.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1211231955.32587.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1211393440.3601.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 22:16:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1211394916.7957.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00644.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 11:10 -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > If you want to improve on that a little bit more, you might > say "If you change the machine state in the middle of a > replay, I will throw away all of the recorded state *forward* > of that point, but keep the recorded state going *back* from > there. You can't go back into what used to be the "future" > because by changing the past, you have now destroyed that > particular future. But you can still go further into the > past. Right. And that's very easy to implement right? Just throw away the recorded entries "in the future". Or am I being to naïve? -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center