From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30157 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2009 17:22:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 30148 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Oct 2009 17:22:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:14 +0000 Received: from jupiter.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9655D13538; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by jupiter.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88459DC078; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AD4B619.4060208@vmware.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:22:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hui Zhu CC: "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [discuss] Process record -- save and restore to a file References: <4AD35518.9040606@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 Hui Zhu wrote: >> record save > I think it is not bad. > >> record restore > 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 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 >> >> Restore recording: >> (gdb) core >> (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 >> >> which would do the same as the "core" and "record" commands. >> >> Secondly, I have a suggestion about the command names. >> How about >> record save >> record restore >> instead of >> record dump >> record load >> >> What do you guys think? >> >>