From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19043 invoked by alias); 20 May 2005 20:58:26 -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 17997 invoked from network); 20 May 2005 20:57:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 May 2005 20:57:47 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4KKvkNr001225 for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 16:57:46 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4KKvjO06041; Fri, 20 May 2005 16:57:45 -0400 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j4KKvha8009518; Fri, 20 May 2005 16:57:43 -0400 Message-ID: <428E4F46.7010501@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 20:58:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird (X11/20050322) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Schlie CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 Paul Schlie wrote: > Alternatively to attempting to specify an interface to a lone commercial > reversible simulator, I don't think that's what we're doing -- these commands are meant to be generically useful, as soon as anyone else can support backwards execution. > or presume the intelligence need be "remote" to GDB; We're not doing that either -- the user interface makes no assumption about the target interface. > I wonder if it may be more sensible to consider initially defining the basic > generic facilities by which GDB may directly support undoable/reversible > execution, and checkpoint features. Well, that's an idea that some of us (me, at least...) have thought about too -- but it's, if not orthogonal, at least separable from this discussion. If gdb asks the target to step backwards or continue backwards, we really don't care how the target accomplishes this (eg. whether by restoring a saved state, or actually reversing the execution of individual instructions). I've thought all along that the "bookmark" idea is separable from the "run backwards" idea.