Re: Using reverse execution

[Michael Snyder <michsnyd at cisco dot com>]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>
> > > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, shebs@apple.com
> > > From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
> > > Date: 20 Sep 2005 16:13:55 -0700
> > >
> > > There is probably some cool use for which tracepoints are the
> > > obvious right answer, but I don't know what it is.
> >
> > In native debugging, tracepoints would be very useful to debug a
> > real-time program, or, more generally, a program where timing issues
> > are crucial to its correct operation.  With such programs, normal GDB
> > usage disrupts the program operation and might even cause the program
> > to fail in ways that are unrelated to the bug you are looking for.
>
>
> I get that that is the idea, it's just that I wouldn't tackle that
> problem that way.  I would put a logging framework in the program
> itself.  That's how I've debugged this sort of issue in the past, and
> the logging framework generally pays off for itself over time.

That's what tracepoint debugging is, Ian -- it's a re-usable
logging framework.  It just frees you up from having to write
that logging code over and over into different projects, and
recompile your project whenever you want to log something
different.

Well, that and a way-cool interactive data review and
presentation mode.   ;-)

But let's not highjack this thread to talk about tracepoints,
unles it's to compare their use and utility to reverse execution.

Michael