|
From: Ramana R. <ram...@gm...> - 2005-08-30 05:15:42
|
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 |