From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-22566-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21727 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2005 20:50:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21705 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Sep 2005 20:50:14 -0000
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:50:14 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-39-97.inter.net.il [80.230.39.97])
	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR)
	with ESMTP id BLD81889 (AUTH halo1);
	Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:50:06 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:50:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u8xxwn3em.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>
CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <432B08CA.8070902@apple.com> (message from Stan Shebs on Fri, 16
	Sep 2005 11:02:50 -0700)
Subject: Re: Using reverse execution
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <432628AA.2040808@apple.com> <uirx563c4.fsf@gnu.org> <43277083.1040708@apple.com> <uacig5n94.fsf@gnu.org> <4328A574.5080906@apple.com> <u4q8n3ssg.fsf@gnu.org> <43290862.9040204@apple.com> <upsramkhg.fsf@gnu.org> <D356BB71-ABF5-4209-9A48-7DA893EE1CD6@apple.com> <4329D5A3.8030202@apple.com> <ull1xmgyd.fsf@gnu.org> <432ACFFB.9040204@apple.com> <ud5n9m19d.fsf@gnu.org> <432B08CA.8070902@apple.com>
X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:02:50 -0700
> From: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >What features can be implemented without hacking the kernel?
> >
> If you limited reversing to designated regions, and single-stepped
> every instruction in the range, collected the exact data changes
> (by disassembling the instructions) and only allowed examination
> rather than re-executing from any given point, all that just needs
> existing GDB machinery. Is it useful?

Sorry, you lost me.  Can you describe this in smaller words?

> At least somebody thinks so, because I just described how the
> omniscient debugger works (using Java bytecodes instead of machine
> instructions).

As I understood the description of the omniscient debugger, it would
be very useful.