Re: [discuss] going back: reverse-execution vs. checkpoint/restart

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 11:51:03AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> And it's quite reasonable to suppose that there is an
> evolutionary path from checkpoint/restart to reverse
> execution.  We've already discussed some of the ways
> in which it could go, so I think it's virtually a given
> that it is possible to get from A to B.  For that matter,
> it should be also possible to get from B to A: a target
> that only supports the rs/bs primatives should be able
> to implement checkpoint/restart in terms of them.

Not necessarily.  Once you back up and manually make a state change it
may not be possible to get back to some other state previously reached.

> How much of that evolution needs to take place on the
> gdb side, and how much on the target side, is a great
> field for discussion -- I would only note that we do
> not have to answer that question now.  If we convince
> ourselves that both sets of primatives are useful for
> some targets, and that one may evolve into the other,
> then there is no reason not to implement them both.
> Being able to do either one but not the other would
> be better than not being able to do either.

Thank you, Michael - that's what I was trying to suggest, but not very
well.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC