From: Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net>
To: <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [discuss] going back: reverse-execution vs. checkpoint/restart
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 04:47:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BEB82A00.A40F%schlie@comcast.net> (raw)
In hopes it may be helpful, upon reviewing some of the earlier posts:
- checkpoints/undo-reverse can never "fail" even if the current
program state is manually modifed, as by definition a check-pointed
state represents the "state" of the program at some previous point in
time, therefore insensitive to it's current state (altered or not,
with a caveat noted below).
- it's likely a good idea to differentiate check-pointing a process
or even a thread running on an OS, from check-pointing the entire
machine inclusive of the OS and all of it's processes. (as where the
later may be infeasible in the general case except for very small
embedded systems, the former may be typically reasonable with the
understanding that the state of the world around it on the other
side of the system interfaces represented in other process states
would not have been check-pointed, therefore are in what ever state
they were last in; which is likely of little consequence if one is
attempting to debug an algorithm which doesn't make sensitive system
calls, however if a socket was opened in a network protocol loop but
not closed prior to reverting to a previous program state which may
have been prior to the socket being originally opened, things could
get weird, so there's no magic, powerful features may require
delicate piloting.)
- in all reasonably useful cases, GDB has direct access to all the
information required without necessity of explicit target support,
who's implementation my be partitioned in such a way that targets
may then improve the efficiency of the solution in an incremental
manor depending on the sophistication of the target, without
requiring that any target support any particular feature to enable
basic check-point/restart, and undo-reverse execution; although
it will be true that in order to achieve a level of efficiency
likely required to interactively do so for large complex processes,
some amount of target assist may be practically necessary (however
there's no magic, check-pointing an entire multi-process platform
may never be practical under any circumstance, regardless of target
support or not).
next reply other threads:[~2005-05-24 4:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-24 4:47 Paul Schlie [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-05-23 18:51 Michael Snyder
2005-05-23 19:01 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-23 19:15 ` Michael Snyder
2005-05-23 19:32 ` Dan Shearer
2005-05-23 19:37 ` Dan Shearer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BEB82A00.A40F%schlie@comcast.net \
--to=schlie@comcast.net \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox