From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-65808-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9557 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2009 03:18:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 9469 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2009 03:17:59 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:17:53 +0000
Received: from jupiter.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) 	by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFC71301B; 	Sat,  1 Aug 2009 20:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) 	by jupiter.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5051BDC05F; 	Sat,  1 Aug 2009 20:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A75054C.9030304@vmware.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:18:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
CC: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>,   gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Add dump and load command to process record and replay
References: <daef60380908010030o1189baaal3927a286e069971c@mail.gmail.com> <4A749572.7030005@vmware.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A749572.7030005@vmware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2

Michael Snyder wrote:

> 3) I don't really understand how core files fit into this,
> but I'd love to discuss that idea in a separate patch thread.

Oh, sorry -- I see how they're related now.
Very clever, actually.

I'd still like to see them submitted separately, though,
because:
1) the dump/restore part of the patch is cleaner and
closer to being acceptable, and can really be used on
its own, while
2) the corefile part of the patch is kind of messy and
prototype-ish, and I think needs much more discussion and
cleaning up before it will be ready.