This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: ReBranch - a record-replay debugging tool
I posted the email to gdb mailing list because:
I want people to know the tool and to use it;
I want developers to be interested in it and help me to improve it, or
even takeover the project (because I won't have enough time to
In my opinion, I want ReBranch to be remain a separate project because
most of ReBranch code is different from gdb, and hard to be integrated
into it (I think). However, currently the gdb replayer itself is a
modified version of gdbserver, the code and replay performance are
both bad (because gdb doesn't support control-flow only debugging
now). If someone can help me to implement it in gdb, then I can remove
the ugly gdbserver patch code from ReBranch, it will be perfect.
About the recording side code, if contribute it to FSF means the
project can be known to and be used by more users, and more developers
can help to improve it, why not to do it?
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Pedro Alves <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday 09 June 2011 15:36:51, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> > > One detail. ÂFiles that had been derived from other GPL files
>> > > should not lose the original copyright notice. ÂOf course
>> > > you can _add_ a note on your own copyright. ÂThat is, e.g.,
>> > > on exception.h|c, I suggest something like:
>> > >
>> > > /* Copyright (C) 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996,
>> > > Â Â1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
>> > > Â Â2009, 2010, 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> > >
>> > > Â ÂCopyright (C) 2009, 2010, 2011 Nan Wang
>> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ^^^^^^^^
>> > If the files are going to be contributed to the GDB project,
>> > I think we'll want the copyright to say FSF, no?
>> The files in question are heavily modified and repurposed for
>> ReBranch. ÂI was under the impression that the tool wanted to
>> remain a separate project. ÂBut if Nan is planning on assigning
>> the copyright to the FSF, yes. ÂOf course, that'd be super cool,
>> as that way we could import bits into gdb/gdbserver proper
>> where it would make sense. Â(Not that I know which bits would
>> that be.) ÂNan, let us know if that's the case.
>> Pedro Alves