Re: [RFA] Submit process record and replay fourth time, 0/8

[Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>]

Hi Marc,

Could you send me the bugs that you got?  If it just can reproduce in
Eclipse, I will try it.

About these bugs, I think we need deal with them one by one and step
by step like before.  :)

Thanks,
Hui

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 23:28, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> wrote:
> I see. ?I've only tried reverse with your patches so I don't know
> if the bugs I see also show up when using vmware, simics or gdbreplay...
> But if those bugs are already in HEAD, it would be good if we could
> get them fixed before 7.0.
>
> If anyone wants to try reverse with Eclipse to do more thourough testing,
> I'll help.
>
> Marc
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
>> [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Hui Zhu
>> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 11:17 AM
>> To: Marc Khouzam
>> Cc: Pedro Alves; Michael Snyder; Thiago Jung Bauermann; Eli
>> Zaretskii; Mark Kettenis; gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Subject: Re: [RFA] Submit process record and replay fourth time, 0/8
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> I think most of issue that you got is about the reverse debug control
>> part. ?This is not in the p record patches. ?The reverse debug include
>> reverse debug control part already in cvs-head.
>> For example, the 3 bugs that you sent to maillist are all for reverse
>> debug control part. But not for p record.
>>
>> Process record just a target that support reverse debug function. ?It
>> depend on reverse debug function.
>> Actually, process record target was designed and developed together
>> with reverse debug (Michael and me).
>>
>> And I think this is a good reason for let process record in now.
>> Reverse debug function had already checked in cvs-head a lot of month.
>> ?It will have a lot of customers after 7.0 release. ?I think it need a
>> big and clear test.
>> Now, remote target support reverse debug in cvs-head. ?The gdb stubs
>> support it are vmware, simics and gdbreplay.
>> So, just process record can use reverse debug in host directly. ?And
>> there is a testsuite for reverse debug and process record called
>> gdb.twreverse (This a temp name) in branch reverse-20081226-branch.
>> It can be very easy to porting to cvs-head. ?And we can add more test
>> (include for MI and eclipse) to increase the testsuit, p record and
>> reverse debug.
>>
>> So, I think let process record in can help move forward. ?:)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hui
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 21:50, Marc Khouzam
>> <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Hui,
>> >
>> > as you know, I am a big fan of your RecordAndReplay enhancements.
>> > In fact, I just demoed it at EclipseCon to show how we can
>> do Reverse
>> > Debugging in the CDT. ?People were very very interested!
>> >
>> > However, I think there are still a few bugs. ?These bugs may be hard
>> > to notice when working from the command line, but when
>> working in Eclipse
>> > they can be seen easily. ?Those bugs are mostly unexpected
>> behavior such
>> > as jumping too far backwards. ?They also happen more easily
>> when using
>> > a program that has a bit of complexity. ?For example, the recursive
>> > bug that I found last week.
>> >
>> > Do you have access to eclipse? ?We can work together to have you try
>> > the reverse debugging that I added to CDT, so that you can work with
>> > your patches more intensely and test them even better.
>> >
>> > I would really like to see your patches in GDB 7.0, so maybe using
>> > Eclipse to test it can help move forward. ?What do you think?
>> >
>> > Marc
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Hui Zhu [mailto:teawater@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 1:34 AM
>> >> To: Pedro Alves; Marc Khouzam; Michael Snyder; Thiago Jung
>> >> Bauermann; Eli Zaretskii; Mark Kettenis
>> >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [RFA] Submit process record and replay fourth
>> time, 0/8
>> >>
>> >> Hi guys,
>> >>
>> >> I am not sure your are reviewing the p record patches or done.
>> >>
>> >> Do you think all of them are ok to in? ?:)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Hui
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 23:58, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi guys,
>> >> >
>> >> > After third time submit, there are a lot of change with
>> >> process record
>> >> > and replay. ?So I submit fourth time to make it clear to review.
>> >> >
>> >> > For this time, Most of changes were updated follow cvs head
>> >> and a lot
>> >> > of format fixes. ?Patch for target.c was removed. ?Record.c was
>> >> > updated a lot of parts according to the ideas of Pedro (Much
>> >> > appreciated).
>> >> > Thanks for help of everybody in the maillist.
>> >> >
>> >> > Process record and replay make gdb can record inferior
>> >> execute log and
>> >> > replay (include reverse debug).
>> >> > Now, it support I386-Linux single-thread inferior native debug.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've divided this patch into eight sections, for ease of review.
>> >> > They group as:
>> >> > 1) Architecture support layer (gdbarch.sh, gdbarch.c, gbarch.h).
>> >> > 2) New stratum of strata in target layer (target.h).
>> >> > 3) Process record and replay target (record.c, record.h,
>> >> Makefile.in).
>> >> > 4) Process record and replay for Linux (linux-record.c,
>> >> > linux-record.h, Makefile.in, configure.tgt).
>> >> > 5) Event handling (infrun.c).
>> >> > 6) Intel 386 target-dependent stuff (i386-tdep.c, i386-tdep.h).
>> >> > 7) Target-dependent code for GNU/Linux i386 (i386-linux-tdep.c).
>> >> > 8) User interface and documentation.
>> >> >
>> >> > For the NEWS:
>> >> > * Process record and replay
>> >> >
>> >> > ?In a architecture environment that supports ``process record and
>> >> > ?replay'', ``process record and replay'' target can
>> record a log of
>> >> > ?the process execution, and replay it with both forward
>> and reverse
>> >> > ?execute commands.
>> >> >
>> >> > These patches be tested with testsuite gdb.twreverse in branch
>> >> > reverse-20081226-branch.
>> >> >
>> >> > Attachment is the compressed patches package to make get
>> >> all patches easy.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Hui
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>