From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3127 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2005 18:57:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 3102 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2005 18:57:40 -0000 Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:57:40 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jA7IvP26032649; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:57:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jA7IvPqc014665; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:57:25 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id jA7IvP4K005599; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:57:25 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:43:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200511071857.jA7IvP4K005599@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: michsnyd@cisco.com CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Mon, 07 Nov 2005 06:40:22 +0200) Subject: Re: [RFC] a prototype checkpoint-restart using core files References: <43696953.9090601@cisco.com> <20051107001937.GG19200@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 06:40:22 +0200 > From: Eli Zaretskii > > > Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 19:19:37 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > I've got to say that this is amazingly cool. > > > > Afraid that's all the comments I have time for at the moment :-) > > I agree, and I'd add that getting this into GDB soon would be good. Heh, I'd expected Eli to ask for documentation ;-) Anyway, in this cause I think that's important since I expect a lot of users won't understand its limitations. If I read the code correctly, there is one rather serious limitation though: restoring mmapped area's will fail if the same area isn't mapped in the target process. Especially on systems that randomize the location of mmapped memory this will make the usefullness of this feature pretty limited :(. Mark