Re: [lizard] Fwd: CODITO - Reversible debugger

[Ramana R. <ram...@gm...>]

You might also be interested in looking at Simics / Virtio Hindsight. They=
=20
have done some interesting work. Also there is a branch in the GDB sources=
=20
for some similar work. Some of that was done by Michael Snyder. If you do=
=20
search the gdb archives you can find references to all of them .=20

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2005-05/msg00145.html

and the associated thread.=20


Enjoy !=20

cheers
Ramana


cheers
Ramana
On 8/30/05, Soam Vasani <soa...@co...> wrote:
>=20
> --- Kalpak Shah <kal...@gm...> wrote:
> > Our BE project group is working at Codito. We were really inspired
> > by LIZARD and have been thinking about reversible debugging. Sameer
> > asked me to take your help for doubts regarding reversible debugger.
>=20
> Ok
>=20
> > Visual Basic has reversible debugging capability with the help of an
> > interpreter which it uses at debugging stage. I found a few
> > interpreters for C viz. Ch(www.softintegration.com<http://www.softinteg=
ration.com>)=20
> and EiC. EiC can
> > be embedded or linked to other programs. We could use it along with
> > GDB to provide this functionality.
>=20
> Which functionality ? Do you want to re-implement lizard ? why ?
> (re-implementing lizard is not an invalid idea, i'm just asking you
> why you're considering it.)
>=20
> > There are good tools available for checkpointing to minimize the
> > memory requirements, so checkpointing most probably should not be a
> > problem. Would it be enough, if we can provide minimal functionality
> > but prove that it is extensible?
>=20
> Minimal functionality for what ? Lizard already implements some
> minimal functionality for a replay debugger, including checkpointing.
>=20
> > Sameer also said that even if are able to change variable values in
> > the executed code, it would be a good enough project. In this case
> > we wouldnt need any recompilation.
>=20
> Yeah, allowing users to change variable values during the debug
> session would be a good feature; i'm not sure it's a big enough BE
> project. (But we'll certainly help you if you decide to do this.)
>=20
> What is the case you are thinking of that requires recompilation ?
>=20
> > What were the major roadblocks that you encountered when you thought
> > about this idea? I thought that the recompilation of the changed
> > code would be the biggest problem, but i guess it could be solved
> > with the help of an interpreter.
>=20
> Overall, I haven't really understood your email. What exactly are you
> looking for ?
>=20
> Please have a look at http://lizard.sourceforge.net/explain.html .
>=20
> If you're looking to extend lizard, we had, i think, thought of 3
> new things that would be nice to do: (1) what-if capability
> i.e. changing variable values (2) supporting multi-threaded programs
> (3) supporting multi-processor programs.
> These 3 things are in increasing order of difficulty.
>=20
> There's also the list of bugs at
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=3D112369&atid=3D662041
>=20
> hope this helps.
>=20
> regards,
> soam
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
> September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle=20
> Practices
> Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & Q=
A
> Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
> _______________________________________________
> Lizard-hackers mailing list
> Liz...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lizard-hackers
>=20



--=20
Ramana Radhakrishnan