From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7650 invoked by alias); 7 May 2009 03:20:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 7640 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2009 03:20:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout4.012.net.il (HELO mtaout3.012.net.il) (84.95.2.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 May 2009 03:20:37 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout3.012.net.il by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KJ9005007T1QE00@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 07 May 2009 06:20:33 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.230.216]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KJ900HNO7Y8YXM0@i_mtaout3.012.net.il>; Thu, 07 May 2009 06:20:33 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 03:20:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [Precord RFA/RFC] Check Linux sys_brk release memory in process record and replay. In-reply-to: To: Hui Zhu Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, msnyder@vmware.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83k54td2el.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT References: <83d4ane6kb.fsf@gnu.org> <833abiexcc.fsf@gnu.org> <83tz3ycchv.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:21:04 +0800 > From: Hui Zhu > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, msnyder@vmware.com > > > I thought the problem was that replaying the execution log before the > > sbrk point would be impossible, because (I thought) there's no way of > > regaining back the memory the inferior gave up.  Is this the problem > > you are talking about?  If so, that is not a fatal limitation, and it > > certainly does not justify stopping the program and asking the user to > > make some grave decision.  The user just needs to be notified, when > > she tries that, that she cannot reverse-replay the log past this > > point.  If the user never tries to replay past that point, she never > > needs to know about the problem. > > I am not sure make inferior cannot continue is good or not. I think > let user choice continue or stop is better. Well, what do others think?