From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23626 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2008 19:49:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 23616 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Oct 2008 19:49:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:48:27 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.24.3]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0K8W00LTUF1OM940@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:49:01 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:49:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [reverse RFC] Add documentation for process record and replay In-reply-to: <00cd01c9308f$002aa0a0$007fe1e0$@com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Jakob Engblom Cc: teawater@gmail.com, msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <48F63B15.3070705@vmware.com> <00cd01c9308f$002aa0a0$007fe1e0$@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/msg00447.txt.bz2 > From: "Jakob Engblom" > Cc: , > > Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:31:36 +0200 > > > > > signals? crashes? etc. Are there things that simply cannot be > > > > reproduced exactly, due to fundamental limitations of the replay > > > > target? > > > > Do you have an opinion about these concerns? > > I would like to jump in here and point out that this will depend on the nature > of the target. Simics, and presumably other full-system simulation solutions, > can replay the entire IO of a machine. This includes any external IO that is > asynch to the simulator execution (such as network packets and user input). > Between machines in a simulated network of machines, replay is obviously > perfect. > > If you try to do this on a live machine, it is a bit more tricky. > > So this is best left to the underlying mechanism, in my experience. We should at least describe a couple of possibilities and tell the reader to consult the documentation of the particular target for the full details.