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

[Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>]

>  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.

Thanks,
Hui


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?
>
>