From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id tOs4BrJx7mFDRgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 04:30:26 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id F1B4F1F3B6; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 04:30:25 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4052E1ECEB for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 04:30:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644E63858006 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:30:24 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 644E63858006 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1643016624; bh=gY6X1/KDp0jgCU533gwvqQAxOuVMO/8Nqejv2ABOdG4=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=oLkqrz4udpcAk/cK2J/M2hlVrSLzkIrWz72dtL209PxkzmKKxHwKR0yMsOmemNgAP 8guysNPBaR/N1nljuIVzi3MjfjSjqkydVEdAS3p5lHOP7t2pZRlTewoBKJN6qo0isV +8Y3H5trzpid9X6GxjPxaYEMVmVYi7YnktgyhgA0= Received: from mail-ua1-x935.google.com (mail-ua1-x935.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::935]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B8463858434 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:27:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7B8463858434 Received: by mail-ua1-x935.google.com with SMTP id n15so28183103uaq.5 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 01:27:15 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gY6X1/KDp0jgCU533gwvqQAxOuVMO/8Nqejv2ABOdG4=; b=vFZnIomqLdIipgpS7P1TzpiFSknLavYqqoK0gHLFUyTjhWN9a5fK/Dwzvvu7PJNSAG Z4cC06onhikoPEP9euf7Z1eTz/DKOkQNDEbezOuZeTxZS8Zgx018sJ6ZkI5OVMXMYyL9 TDkUDg1j+Zn++4JTie2IPEFn8kDRfmDTUbJR+1eoPQXQw7e9AvdPeq0O6+cdprpUGn/5 ytDhb1eY4+tj1/nmN39g2J5EIybq/aMNlfldFwFgTZ73ZtDIbAOiWUGOA4mLym9v/nXV tujsOCHu+iiWgsBEKOq6CjzEayD0yhC+otrM5ph0pDg448DDiaDgBSL1V/m7CsNK8mOz phvg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532INqSXShXB77kcvktmDKucg4LN4mOMuJ2nV5swZ4ABKS3ZfGmW QL9BahLrqjv0rnzc12CuXbVYvRgjGwvDWCKP19MeBQsdGaRR6w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1CrmWs+xZ8jahYXrcuFCYsVG7V/mha7J3zjmUkOGP70GEv5fNLxAfjTS0Cc0dbLuA2kkqllHYuVYTy2KaSWk= X-Received: by 2002:a67:d602:: with SMTP id n2mr2364707vsj.30.1643016434883; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 01:27:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 17:26:38 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Add dump and load command to process record and replay To: Simon Sobisch Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Hui Zhu via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Hui Zhu Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches ml Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" I am not sure. I gave up the patches If you cannot find it in the upstream. Best, Hui Simon Sobisch =E4=BA=8E2022=E5=B9=B41=E6=9C=8821=E6= =97=A5=E5=91=A8=E4=BA=94 14:46=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > This RFC was about a way to store a command file along with recording > and later be able to load it and reverse-step / step through it. > That idea sounds very cool and like something that I would use quite > often, especially on longer debugging runs where the starting point > takes a while to reach... > > I've stumbled over this suggested patch which was discussed and adjusted > multiple times in 2009 and then seem to be loose on a documentation > question. > > The last entry I've found to this was > https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00145.html > > Can anyone share about the state of this patch? > Would anyone like to adjust this to the current source? > > Thanks for any insights, > Simon