This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: ReBranch - a record-replay debugging tool
I've changed the description in the site.
Only replay phase use gdbserver, recording phase is standalone. In fact,
there is a GUI tool (rebranchk.tcl) which allow users to replay without GDB.
> in the site it says:
> The replay is driven by GDB, nearly all GDB commands are useable.
> Do I understand that recording is adopted differently ?
> From: Pedro Alves <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: pi3orama <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thu, June 9, 2011 2:57:20 PM
> Subject: Re: ReBranch - a record-replay debugging tool
> On Thursday 09 June 2011 08:21:47, pi3orama wrote:
>> I developed a new record-replay tool -- ReBranch
>> (http://code.google.com/p/rebranch/), which focus on debugging
>> non-deterministic bugs. ReBranch can record the outgoing addresses of
>> every branch instructions, and recreate the whole control flow when
>> debugging. I have use it to fix some bugs in real open source projects
>> such as lighttpd and memcached. Unfortunately, few people knows this
>> project at google code, so nearly no one uses it.
>> I know that GDB has its own record-replay. However, I still believe
>> ReBranch is useful: ReBranch focus on recording in production systems,
>> its record performance is better than GDB's recording, it can record
>> whole program path (GDB can only record part of it), and most important,
>> ReBranch can be used in multi-threading programs.
> Can you outline ReBranch's record/replay strategy, and how it differs
> from GDB's record?
>> I send this mail because I eagerly expect people to use my tool on their
>> developing process, and help me to improve it. And also, I want the
>> replay tool to be more integrated with GDB -- currently ReBranch use a
>> modified gdbserver to do the replay work, however, because ReBranch only
>> records control-flow, the replay performance is far from prefect.
> Since it based on modified gdbserver sources, making it a derivative
> work, it must be GPLv3, right? I ask because the website says
> MIT license.