From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21482 invoked by alias); 7 May 2002 19:00:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21436 invoked from network); 7 May 2002 19:00:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 May 2002 19:00:37 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 175ACT-0006uL-00; Tue, 07 May 2002 15:00:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 12:00:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Charles James Leonardo Quarra Cappiello Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: questions / suggestions about gdb Message-ID: <20020507190037.GA26456@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Charles James Leonardo Quarra Cappiello , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 02:58:03PM -0400, Charles James Leonardo Quarra Cappiello wrote: > Hi, > > > I'm an often user of gdb, and i was wondering, since debuggers cant go to > past states (no inversibility of the run), it would be nice if two > instances of the debugger could run synchronized with a given step offset, > so when the advanced instance break, the retarded instance stops, keeping > an analogous state which can be studied. > > This actually can be done or is not feasible? If can't be done just now but > is from the debugger's developers point of view feasible, consider this a > feature request. GDB just gained a feature that'll do almost what you want: the `generate-core-file' command. You can then debug the new corefile to examine the frozen state. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer