From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20538 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2009 15:17:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 20528 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2009 15:17:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_39,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.190) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:17:26 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a1so1462229tib.12 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:17:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.110.42.17 with SMTP id p17mr8605314tip.36.1238426243077; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:17:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA072C016B@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA072C016B@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] Submit process record and replay fourth time, 0/8 From: Hui Zhu To: Marc Khouzam Cc: Pedro Alves , Michael Snyder , Thiago Jung Bauermann , Eli Zaretskii , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00670.txt.bz2 Hi Marc, I think most of issue that you got is about the reverse debug control part. This is not in the p record patches. The reverse debug include reverse debug control part already in cvs-head. For example, the 3 bugs that you sent to maillist are all for reverse debug control part. But not for p record. Process record just a target that support reverse debug function. It depend on reverse debug function. Actually, process record target was designed and developed together with reverse debug (Michael and me). And I think this is a good reason for let process record in now. Reverse debug function had already checked in cvs-head a lot of month. It will have a lot of customers after 7.0 release. I think it need a big and clear test. Now, remote target support reverse debug in cvs-head. The gdb stubs support it are vmware, simics and gdbreplay. So, just process record can use reverse debug in host directly. And there is a testsuite for reverse debug and process record called gdb.twreverse (This a temp name) in branch reverse-20081226-branch. It can be very easy to porting to cvs-head. And we can add more test (include for MI and eclipse) to increase the testsuit, p record and reverse debug. So, I think let process record in can help move forward. :) Thanks, Hui On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 21:50, Marc Khouzam wro= te: > Hi Hui, > > as you know, I am a big fan of your RecordAndReplay enhancements. > In fact, I just demoed it at EclipseCon to show how we can do Reverse > Debugging in the CDT. =A0People were very very interested! > > However, I think there are still a few bugs. =A0These bugs may be hard > to notice when working from the command line, but when working in Eclipse > they can be seen easily. =A0Those bugs are mostly unexpected behavior such > as jumping too far backwards. =A0They also happen more easily when using > a program that has a bit of complexity. =A0For example, the recursive > bug that I found last week. > > Do you have access to eclipse? =A0We can work together to have you try > the reverse debugging that I added to CDT, so that you can work with > your patches more intensely and test them even better. > > I would really like to see your patches in GDB 7.0, so maybe using > Eclipse to test it can help move forward. =A0What do you think? > > Marc > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hui Zhu [mailto:teawater@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:34 AM >> To: Pedro Alves; Marc Khouzam; Michael Snyder; Thiago Jung >> Bauermann; Eli Zaretskii; Mark Kettenis >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> Subject: Re: [RFA] Submit process record and replay fourth time, 0/8 >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I am not sure your are reviewing the p record patches or done. >> >> Do you think all of them are ok to in? =A0:) >> >> >> Thanks, >> Hui >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 23:58, Hui Zhu wrote: >> > Hi guys, >> > >> > After third time submit, there are a lot of change with >> process record >> > and replay. =A0So I submit fourth time to make it clear to review. >> > >> > For this time, Most of changes were updated follow cvs head >> and a lot >> > of format fixes. =A0Patch for target.c was removed. =A0Record.c was >> > updated a lot of parts according to the ideas of Pedro (Much >> > appreciated). >> > Thanks for help of everybody in the maillist. >> > >> > Process record and replay make gdb can record inferior >> execute log and >> > replay (include reverse debug). >> > Now, it support I386-Linux single-thread inferior native debug. >> > >> > I've divided this patch into eight sections, for ease of review. >> > They group as: >> > 1) Architecture support layer (gdbarch.sh, gdbarch.c, gbarch.h). >> > 2) New stratum of strata in target layer (target.h). >> > 3) Process record and replay target (record.c, record.h, >> Makefile.in). >> > 4) Process record and replay for Linux (linux-record.c, >> > linux-record.h, Makefile.in, configure.tgt). >> > 5) Event handling (infrun.c). >> > 6) Intel 386 target-dependent stuff (i386-tdep.c, i386-tdep.h). >> > 7) Target-dependent code for GNU/Linux i386 (i386-linux-tdep.c). >> > 8) User interface and documentation. >> > >> > For the NEWS: >> > * Process record and replay >> > >> > =A0In a architecture environment that supports ``process record and >> > =A0replay'', ``process record and replay'' target can record a log of >> > =A0the process execution, and replay it with both forward and reverse >> > =A0execute commands. >> > >> > These patches be tested with testsuite gdb.twreverse in branch >> > reverse-20081226-branch. >> > >> > Attachment is the compressed patches package to make get >> all patches easy. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Hui >> > >> >