From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31279 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2009 20:30:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 31264 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Oct 2009 20:30:19 -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-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:30:14 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81493B01B; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCBEC9C10; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AD4E226.8090406@vmware.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:30:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Law CC: "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [discuss] Process record -- save and restore to a file References: <4AD35518.9040606@vmware.com> <4AD4CABC.3060202@undo-software.com> <4AD4CCB4.9000900@vmware.com> <4AD4D027.8080806@undo-software.com> In-Reply-To: <4AD4D027.8080806@undo-software.com> 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/msg00249.txt.bz2 Greg Law wrote: > Michael Snyder wrote: >> Greg Law wrote: >>> Michael Snyder wrote: >>>> [..] >>>> >>>> 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? >>> UI looks good to me, too. >>> >>> Would we expect these commands to be reflected over the remote >>> protocol if a remote target were using reverse debugging? >> No, just as with core files, we've never made the final effort >> to get gdb to suck all the information out of the remote target. >> >> And since this feature involves saving a core file, you can >> imagine how much data we would be transporting. >> >> If we did corefiles first, I don't imagine it would be too hard >> to get the rest of this to work. > > Oh, I wasn't imagining sucking the entire record log from the remote > target into gdb. I was thinking of driving the saving/restoring of > remote logs from gdb itself. So say you have gdb attached to a > reversible debugging session on VMware or UndoDB or Simics or whatever, > you could issue 'record save' and have the backend dump its log to disk > in some format the backend understands. Likewise 'record restore' would > cause send a packet to the backend causing the backend to suck in the > logfile. The various backends could probably have their own interfaces > to do this stuff, but it would seem nicer to have a "proper" interface > for this at the gdb level. Ah, I see. Yeah, that might be a good idea. In my mind, the deciding factor (whether it's worth doing) would be, could we get like three back-end maintainers to agree on what would be a useful syntax / semantics for them. Say, you, VirtuTech and VMware? There are probably a lot of other backend-specific things that we could agree to do if they were common enough, but that might be best done with monitor commands if not.