From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14858 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2009 22:58:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14849 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2009 22:58:09 -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-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:58:03 +0000 Received: from jupiter.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A561E00F; Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:58:02 -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 428DCDC067; Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A7F5410.4000400@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 03:09:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hui Zhu CC: Eli Zaretskii , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Add dump and load command to process record and replay References: <4A79F802.4060102@vmware.com> <83ab2docqi.fsf@gnu.org> <4A7B99B3.40407@vmware.com> <4A7B9F49.9030202@vmware.com> <83ws5gm30b.fsf@gnu.org> <4A7C625B.8080005@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: 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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 Hui Zhu wrote: > I think give him a query is very clear. > > When he load, if there are some record log, it will query to user. He > must choice remove the old record log or keep them. He already know > what will happen. This is my opinion. The default should be to remove the old log (not to query). I think this will be both the most common case and the safest. We can maybe add a command option for those who wish not to do that. Anyone else have an opinion? > On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 01:20, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> From: Hui Zhu >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 11:34:20 +0800 >>>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" >>>> >>>> >>>> I think a warning is clear to most of people. >>>> >>>> And when he get this warning. He can delete the record list and load >>>> again. He will lost nothing. >>>> >>>> If we delete the old record list, maybe he still need old record. He >>>> will lost something. >>> Instead of a warning, how about asking the user whether to discard the >>> old records or keep them? >> My concern is, in most cases keeping them will be the wrong thing to do. >> It will be very easy to create an internally inconsistent state, and >> rather unlikely to create one that is *not* internally inconsistant. >> >> Think about it -- we will be concatenating two independent sets of >> state changes, with no way of knowing that the actual machine state >> at the end of one is the same as the machine state at the beginning >> of the other. When these are then replayed, their effect may have >> little or nothing to do with what the real machine would actually do. >> >> To actually get this right, you would have to be *sure* that your >> target machine is in the exact same state "now" (ie. when you do >> the load command) as it was at the *beginning* of the previous >> recording/debugging session. >> >> I would rather either make this a separate, "expert mode" >> command, or better still, leave it for a future patch to extend >> the basic (and safe) patch that we first accept. >> >> >> >