From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1432 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2009 03:21:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 1424 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2009 03:20:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iw0-f183.google.com (HELO mail-iw0-f183.google.com) (209.85.223.183) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:20:54 +0000 Received: by iwn13 with SMTP id 13so1322856iwn.12 for ; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:20:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.122.208 with SMTP id m16mr3730026ibr.16.1251602452082; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:20:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83ws4m9fhr.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4A948FF1.6000405@vmware.com> <4A949176.9060604@vmware.com> <831vmubitq.fsf@gnu.org> <83zl9i9xls.fsf@gnu.org> <4A99909E.7030302@vmware.com> <83ws4m9fhr.fsf@gnu.org> From: Hui Zhu Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Add dump and load command to process record and replay To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Michael Snyder , 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00556.txt.bz2 On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:56, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:33:34 -0700 >> From: Michael Snyder >> CC: Hui Zhu , >> =A0"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" >> >> > Sorry, I don't understand: why would we want to have the record log in >> > a core file? =A0What am I missing here? >> >> Because the record-log itself does not record starting state -- >> only changes of state. =A0It is useless by itself if you don't >> restore the starting state first. >> >> Hui's original patch used the "gcore" command to save the >> starting state, and "target core" to restore it. >> >> The problem that I found with that was that it created two >> independent files, core file and record-log file, and that >> there was no way to assure ourselves (or the user) that the >> two files corresponded to one another when they were re-loaded. >> >> That's why I suggested combining them into one file -- >> in this implementation, by adding the record-log to an >> extra section in the core file. > > Thanks for explaining. > > This all needs to be said in the manual (in a form suitable for the > manual, omitting the technicalities and describing this from user > perspective). =A0We cannot just say "dump record log to core file". =A0So > I hereby revoke my approval of the patch for the manual. > Agree with you, Eli. Do you have more better words on it? You know my poor english. :) Thanks, Hui