Re: [discuss] Process record -- save and restore to a file

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>]

Hui Zhu wrote:
> >  record save <filename>
> I think it is not bad.
>
> >  record restore <filename>
> I suggest we can make the core load and record together.  Because
> record log is together with core.

Yep!  I think we are all on the same page.

> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 00:11, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> > OK, we set this discussion aside over a month ago, until after 7.0.
> > Time to revive it?  Seemed like the implementation discussion had
> > more or less stabilized, and we were mostly still discussing the
> > user interface and docs -- so let's start there.
> >
> >
> > In the last cycle, we had come down to a UI that looked like this:
> >
> > Save recording:
> >  (gdb) record dump <filename>
> >
> > Restore recording:
> >  (gdb) core <filename>
> >  (gdb) record
> >
> >
> > I would like to remark that the "restore" UI is logical but not
> > intuitive.  I think it would be helpful to have a single command eg:
> >
> >  (gdb) record load <filename>
> >
> > which would do the same as the "core" and "record" commands.
> >
> > 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?