From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27009 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2008 05:12:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 26981 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Nov 2008 05:12:44 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.187) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:11:58 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so143499tib.12 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.110.20.15 with SMTP id 15mr827762tit.8.1227157915394; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.110.103.3 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:11:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:28:00 -0000 From: teawater To: "Michael Snyder" Subject: Re: [RFA] Resubmit process record and replay, 3/10 Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" In-Reply-To: <4924C10E.7010504@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4924C10E.7010504@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: 2008-11/txt/msg00540.txt.bz2 I am sorry that I didn't make it clear. This diff between P record and cvs version is in attachment file 3-record_target.txt. On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 09:44, Michael Snyder wrote: > teawater wrote: >> >> This patch add the process record and replay target. This is the core >> part of process record and replay. >> >> 2008-11-16 Hui Zhu >> >> Process record and replay target. >> >> * Makefile.in (record.c): New file. >> * record.c, record.h: New file. >> >> Makefile.in | 4 >> b/record.c | 1156 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> b/record.h | 99 +++++ >> 3 files changed, 1257 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> Following is the diff with the previous patch: > > I don't think a diff with the previous patch is the > way to go here. The makefile part of this diff is > not very understandable. > > Could you repost this patch with the usual diff > between Makefile.in and the current version that's > in CVS? > > Thanks! >