explicit checkpointing

Robert O'Callahan robert at ocallahan.org
Mon May 5 22:16:04 PDT 2014


On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Chris Jones <jones.chris.g at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote:
>
>> Am I missing anything? It sounds very easy.
>>
>>
> ​That's as far as I'd planned things out, and matches my thinking :).​
>
> The one potential subtlety is ensuring we don't confuse gdb too much.  We
> need to ensure that all the debugger breakpoints are cleared before we make
> a new checkpoint (and potentially, we'll need to save/restore them too),
>

Right.


> and after restoring a checkpoint, we'll probably have to notify gdb of all
> the new task statuses.  (Remember, to the gdb client it'll look like the
> whole world changed behind its back.)
>

That part seems fine since when we restore the checkpoint via "run" gdb
already knows the world is changing.

Rob
-- 
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...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rr-dev/attachments/20140506/4beeff56/attachment.html>


More information about the rr-dev mailing list