From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31169 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2008 02:10:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 31092 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2008 02:10:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.188) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:09:36 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so1940113tib.12 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.110.52.1 with SMTP id z1mr1393801tiz.20.1224122973448; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.110.42.9 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:10:00 -0000 From: teawater To: "Eli Zaretskii" Subject: Re: [reverse RFC] Add documentation for process record and replay Cc: "Michael Snyder" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <48F63B15.3070705@vmware.com> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00388.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 03:43, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:48:53 -0700 >> From: Michael Snyder >> CC: teawater , >> "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" >> >> Eli, I think the relation is that we will save one log entry >> for each instruction executed. Not necessarily that we save >> the instruction itself, but since we do save the PC (it being >> part of the state that is changed by executing the instruction), >> we always have access to the instruction itself if we want it >> (either in memory or in object file). > > I understand that (now). But the original text, viz. > > When this target is in use, if the next instruction to be executed > is in the execution log, ... > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > made it sound like the instructions themselves are in the log. This > will need to be rephrased. > Sorry for understand your mean so slow. How about change it to "if the next instruction has the execution log for it"?