From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32651 invoked by alias); 23 May 2005 19:01:25 -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 32511 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2005 19:01:13 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 May 2005 19:01:13 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DaIAp-0002ME-Jw; Mon, 23 May 2005 15:01:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 19:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [discuss] going back: reverse-execution vs. checkpoint/restart Message-ID: <20050523190111.GA9003@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <42922617.3050805@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42922617.3050805@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2 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