From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24269 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2005 19:53:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 24251 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2005 19:53:44 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:53:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jAGJrg5g013088; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:53:42 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jAGJraV05542; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:53:37 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jAGJrYPe026652; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:53:35 -0500 Message-ID: <437B8E3E.1080406@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:13:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johan Rydberg CC: Michael Snyder , gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] A better implementation of Checkpoint/Restart References: <4377D303.4010704@cisco.com> <437ADDFB.8080805@virtutech.com> In-Reply-To: <437ADDFB.8080805@virtutech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 Johan Rydberg wrote: > Michael Snyder wrote: > >> Hi folk, > > > Hi Michael, > >> The attached patch, again, is for discussion and review, not >> for approval or commit. This patch adds a first-cut implementation >> of checkpoint and restart commands, based on fork instead of >> on corefiles. >> [...] >> I'd be thrilled if folks would try it out and comment. > > > I will try to get a few minutes over and try this little fella out, but > I have an initial question: > > Would it be possible to make this a bit more generic, maybe by moving > it into the target vector? That would make things easier for targets > which implement some kind of checkpointing mechanism their self. Yes of course -- this is all just quick-and-dirty. That's why I haven't asked for approval to check it in. In the mean time, if your target isn't native linux, you won't be affected by this patch, since the patch is all in the linux-native source module.