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...
More information about the rr-dev