From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16303 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2013 16:59:37 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 16293 invoked by uid 89); 17 Dec 2013 16:59:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:59:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBHGxX3w006677 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:59:33 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rBHGxVb8023060; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:59:32 -0500 Message-ID: <52B082E7.8000201@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:59:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Metzger, Markus T" CC: "jan.kratochvil@redhat.com" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch v8 23/24] record-btrace: show trace from enable location References: <1386839747-8860-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1386839747-8860-24-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <52AB64F3.3010305@redhat.com> <52AF5763.9050800@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00655.txt.bz2 On 12/17/2013 01:20 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >> OK, the question was then, would it be wrong to allow >> accessing registers and memory of the live program, if replaying, and >> at that position? Just OOC and for my education, I'm not saying >> it'd be a requirement. > > It would be conceptually wrong. > > And it would not be necessary, either, since we will never be in > this position when the user gets the prompt. We will only pass > through it internally. When the user gets the prompt, we are > either replaying and we're somewhere in the execution history. > Or we're not replaying and we're at the current location. OK, thanks. -- Pedro Alves