Re: [discuss] Process record -- save and restore to a file

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Hui Zhu wrote:
>>  record save <filename>
> I think it is not bad.
> 
>>  record restore <filename>
> I suggest we can make the core load and record together.  Because
> record log is together with core.

Yep!  I think we are all on the same page.

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 00:11, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
>> OK, we set this discussion aside over a month ago, until after 7.0.
>> Time to revive it?  Seemed like the implementation discussion had
>> more or less stabilized, and we were mostly still discussing the
>> user interface and docs -- so let's start there.
>>
>>
>> In the last cycle, we had come down to a UI that looked like this:
>>
>> Save recording:
>>  (gdb) record dump <filename>
>>
>> Restore recording:
>>  (gdb) core <filename>
>>  (gdb) record
>>
>>
>> I would like to remark that the "restore" UI is logical but not
>> intuitive.  I think it would be helpful to have a single command eg:
>>
>>  (gdb) record load <filename>
>>
>> which would do the same as the "core" and "record" commands.
>>
>> Secondly, I have a suggestion about the command names.
>> How about
>>  record save <filename>
>>  record restore <filename>
>> instead of
>>  record dump <filename>
>>  record load <filename>
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>>
>>