From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id NAA15197; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:21:38 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA11802 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:21:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from relay-3m.club-internet.fr (relay-3m.club-internet.fr [194.158.104.42]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9MBLa503997; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:21:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from warp (lns03m-1-82.w.club-internet.fr [212.194.48.82]) by relay-3m.club-internet.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 47A74E129; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:21:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <008201c279bd$65950500$3900a8c0@warp> From: "Nicolas Cannasse" To: "Xavier Leroy" , "Dmitry Bely" Cc: "OCaml" References: <20021021152135.E12164@pauillac.inria.fr> <20021022095740.A6289@pauillac.inria.fr> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocamldebug and windows Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:23:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > It is true that time-travel in the presence of I/O is, in general, > impossible. (You can't "un-send" the network packets that were > already sent!) However, I'd like it to work at least for programs > that read or write regular files, as in the example above. Under > Unix, fork() gets us 90% there -- there is still an issue with the > reading/writing position being shared (not duplicated) between the > parent and child process, but we are considering hacks to work around > this. Of course, backward program execution is really a great feature ! But what about simply having a debugger under Win32 without it ? That would be far better than no debugger at all... And perhaps that will motivate some *cool hackers* who will then work on the checkpointing library you were talking about or equivalent solutions. - Nicolas Cannasse ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners