From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13541 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2005 20:26:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 13525 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2005 20:26:00 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:26:00 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EZDYw-0006Oe-48; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:25:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: michsnyd@cisco.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [RFC] a prototype checkpoint-restart using core files Message-ID: <20051107202554.GA24572@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , michsnyd@cisco.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org References: <43696953.9090601@cisco.com> <20051107001937.GG19200@nevyn.them.org> <200511071857.jA7IvP4K005599@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20051107190724.GA19531@nevyn.them.org> <200511072021.jA7KLanV015248@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200511072021.jA7KLanV015248@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:21:36PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:07:24 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > > If I read the code correctly, there is one rather serious limitation > > > though: restoring mmapped area's will fail if the same area isn't > > > mapped in the target process. Especially on systems that randomize > > > the location of mmapped memory this will make the usefullness of this > > > feature pretty limited :(. > > > > Why should it? The expected use is to restore these dumps into the > > same running session - just after stepping a bit. So unless you step > > across a very large free(), it should be fine. > > Ah, somehow I forgar about the "same running session" part. Guess > that's one of the things that needs to be clearly documented then ;-). Yeah - a general purpose "restore core file" command would be neat, but I think, not practical enough to be useful. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC