From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-33168-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7630 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2008 07:29:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 7621 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Oct 2008 07:29:36 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from dns.vtab.com (HELO oden.vtab.com) (62.20.90.195)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:28:55 +0000
Received: from oden.vtab.com (oden.vtab.com [127.0.0.1]) 	by oden.vtab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75A726EF19; 	Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:28:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from polhem (unknown [62.20.90.206]) 	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) 	(No client certificate requested) 	by oden.vtab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC8126EF07; 	Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:28:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Jakob Engblom" <jakob@virtutech.com>
To: "'teawater'" <teawater@gmail.com>, 	"'Michael Snyder'" <msnyder@vmware.com>
Cc: <gdb@sourceware.org>
References: <48FBDA34.6020104@vmware.com> <daef60380810200907x75bc1661k6d8f5b82e43d7d38@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <daef60380810200907x75bc1661k6d8f5b82e43d7d38@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [discuss] semantics, "replay debugging" vs. "reverse debugging"
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:29:00 -0000
Message-ID: <007e01c9334e$aad56ff0$00804fd0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-Language: sv
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2


> > One could have reverse without record/replay if,
> > for instance, one had a machine architecture where
> > all instructions were reversable, ie. the machine
> > itself could reverse-execute an instruction.
> 
> I think maybe some instruction can do it.
> Such as add instruction. When it forward execute, it add some number
> to a value of register. When it reverse, it can sub this number from
> the value of register. It can reverse without record.
> 
> In P record, I make a interface to use it in record_t need_dasm. But I
> still not use it. Maybe I can use it in the future.

When thinking about overflow semantics, etc., it is clear that this can never
work in general.  

The easiest way to create a reversible system is to 

1. Impose determinisim

2. Make sure you can get back to a previous state

And then you simply jump back and reexecute until some chosen point in time.
Works like a charm, and is very general.

/jakob