From: Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: Dan Shearer <dan@shearer.org>, <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 22:43:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BEB3E025.A3AD%schlie@comcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050520220807.GA11445@nevyn.them.org>
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:01:44PM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote:
>>> From: Dan Shearer <dan@shearer.org>
>>> In the longer term yes, GDB should be able to debug with a sense of
>>> direction and time. But I think it will take quite a bit of experimentation
>>> before we have a clear model of how to do this, and the only way I can think
>>> of for both having a reversible GDB and not touching GDB too much is by
>>> considering remote targets first.
>>
>> - Then you'll end up with nothing more than an interface to a propriety
>> simulator, which doesn't seem like a good goal or approach for GDB.
>
> This argument is so bogus that I need to call you on it. You end up
> with a reasonable interface to _any_ simulator, whether proprietary or
> not. The details of an efficient implementation will be obviously
> dependent on the simulator's state and implementation.
- Which is fully your right to claim/believe; however noting the absence
of non-proprietary simulators with these capabilities (it's a little
unclear how one can presume that interfaces are likely most ideally
necessary or appropriate; and simply note that register and memory state
by definition is program state, which GDB already has direct access to).
> I am inclined to agree with the posted proposals that the
> implementation of reverse-stepi should be opaque to GDB, at least for
> now. The performance of shuffling state diffs over the remote protocol
> - or even just references to them - would be horrid. It also means
> that GDB will be limited to a particular class of implementations of
> reversible simulation instead of the concept of reversible simulation.
- There's no magic, defining a interface for a non-existent simulator
doesn't yield a functional solution, and given the absents of knowledge
of what that the "typical" simulator's interface presumptions are seems
a little premature to define in lieu of a solution.
As an aside and personal opinion, I happen believe it's not likely good
form to define "opaque" interfaces to non-FSF tools without at least
simultaneously implementing a non-opaque/proprietary solution (which is
I guess the same philosophical problem that I have with the sourcing of
any information, including potentially proprietary extended register/ISA
definitions through an "opaque" interface/wall).
> You're describing something which may be interesting, someday. Do feel
> welcome to implement it; we'll be glad to help. I don't think that
> it's inherently more appropriate than the proposed interface, though.
- It was just offered as a potential alternative based on a different
philosophical view; which I may consider doing something with as time
and inclination may allow, and do appreciate the offer for assistance
if/when that time comes.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-20 22:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-20 15:49 Paul Schlie
2005-05-20 17:41 ` Dan Shearer
2005-05-20 22:01 ` Paul Schlie
2005-05-20 22:08 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 22:43 ` Paul Schlie [this message]
2005-05-21 0:58 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-21 1:42 ` Paul Schlie
2005-05-21 1:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-21 1:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-21 15:03 ` Paul Schlie
2005-05-21 14:13 ` Paul Schlie
2005-05-21 14:23 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-21 15:04 ` Paul Schlie
2005-05-20 20:58 ` Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 21:35 ` Paul Schlie
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-05-21 15:53 Paul Schlie
2005-05-20 22:11 Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 23:32 ` Paul Schlie
2005-05-20 21:59 Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 21:51 Michael Snyder
2005-05-21 9:44 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 21:44 Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 21:25 Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 21:16 Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 21:31 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-21 9:39 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-23 18:19 ` Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 21:11 Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 21:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 19:02 Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 20:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 21:03 ` Michael Snyder
2005-05-19 1:23 Dan Shearer
2005-05-19 13:01 ` Johan Rydberg
2005-05-19 13:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-19 13:47 ` Johan Rydberg
2005-05-20 10:37 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 11:37 ` Andreas Schwab
2005-05-20 13:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 13:36 ` Fabian Cenedese
2005-05-20 13:47 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 14:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 22:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 12:22 ` Johan Rydberg
2005-05-20 13:19 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 14:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 13:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 14:34 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 15:40 ` Johan Rydberg
2005-05-20 10:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-16 17:47 Dan Shearer
2005-05-16 18:04 ` Dan Shearer
2005-05-20 18:15 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-21 0:05 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2005-05-21 10:13 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-21 10:28 ` Russell Shaw
2005-05-21 12:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-21 12:55 ` Russell Shaw
2005-05-21 14:39 ` Russell Shaw
2005-05-21 14:19 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-21 15:46 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-21 17:43 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-23 19:39 ` Dan Shearer
2005-05-12 23:08 Michael Snyder
2005-05-13 6:23 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-19 13:46 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-19 18:46 ` Michael Snyder
2005-05-19 19:26 ` Johan Rydberg
2005-05-20 10:55 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 13:04 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 14:30 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 14:43 ` Andreas Schwab
2005-05-20 20:48 ` Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 20:51 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 20:38 ` Michael Snyder
2005-05-20 15:05 ` Vladimir Prus
2005-05-20 15:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 18:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-20 18:30 ` Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20 19:27 ` Stan Shebs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BEB3E025.A3AD%schlie@comcast.net \
--to=schlie@comcast.net \
--cc=dan@shearer.org \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).