Greg Law wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
[..]
Secondly, I have a suggestion about the command names.
How about
record save <filename>
record restore <filename>
instead of
record dump <filename>
record load <filename>
What do you guys think?
UI looks good to me, too.
Would we expect these commands to be reflected over the remote
protocol if a remote target were using reverse debugging?
No, just as with core files, we've never made the final effort
to get gdb to suck all the information out of the remote target.
And since this feature involves saving a core file, you can
imagine how much data we would be transporting.
If we did corefiles first, I don't imagine it would be too hard
to get the rest of this to work.