From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12418 invoked by alias); 21 May 2008 18:46:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 12407 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2008 18:46:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 May 2008 18:45:45 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD12983FF; Wed, 21 May 2008 18:45:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8200F98371; Wed, 21 May 2008 18:45:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JytJm-0008Iu-Ng; Wed, 21 May 2008 14:45:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 22:40:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Michael Snyder , Tea , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB record patch 0.1.3.1 for GDB-6.8 release Message-ID: <20080521184542.GA31895@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , Michael Snyder , Tea , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1211231955.32587.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1211393440.3601.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1211394916.7957.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1211394916.7957.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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/msg00646.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 03:35:16PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > 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? It depends... hey, weren't you at my talk about this last June? :-) I don't remember if I went into this part but there's a section in the proceedings. Continuing forward from a modified point depends on being able to synchronize external and recorded state. Just destroying the recorded state would work if you could detect relevant modifications - it's made slightly tricky by memory breakpoints but you're right, it's not too hard. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery