RFC: releasing version 0.1
jones.chris.g at gmail.com
Wed Sep 18 21:29:27 PDT 2013
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Chris Jones <jones.chris.g at gmail.com>wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote:
>>> My long term plans do not involve gdb anyway.
>> Right, I just thought it would have gotten us further in the short term
>> :/. But we'll see how things look in newer OSes.
> I don't suggest we give up on gdb. I'm just saying it's no big deal if
> it's a bit rough around the edges.
Oh, neither am I. I would just be a bit disappointed if the debugging UX
with rr was worse than gdb 6.x, from the user not even being able to
connect multiple gdb clients to multiple processes in the trace
simultaneously. Let alone have one UI for multiple processes. But I
think we're on the same page.
> One thing that would help is if there's a way, during recording, at each
> fork() or exec(), to dump the rr command that can be used to replay with
> debugging of that process/image. Then it should be an easy copy/paste to
> select which process you want to debug during replay. That would be better
> than anything interactive IMHO.
Yeah that's trivial with the backend in place.
> Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni
> le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa
> stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
> 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp
> waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rr-dev