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),


> 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.

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