From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32703 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2007 11:21:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 32584 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2007 11:21:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:21:20 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71F998308; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:21:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C77798104; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:21:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IKXz4-0004lg-6X; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:21:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: teawater Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB record target 0.0.1 for GDB-6.6 release (It make GDB support Reversible Debugging) Message-ID: <20070813112118.GB18301@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: teawater , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20070810181817.GA11548@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 09:37:11AM +0800, teawater wrote: > BTW: I think if the user want reverse execute to the real past status of > program, record all of the running message is the only way. Because a lot of > thing cannot be reverse execute such a system call. If the program write > some message to a file, howto reverse execute it? Remove this message from > the fire? You may want to read the paper, where I discuss this :-) The current implementation records system calls, a future version may indeed undo output. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery