Related, yes, although the current prototype is narrower. Chandy-Lamport captures a consistent global state across communicating processes whereas TCC checkpoints program continuations at compiler-defined durable boundaries.
in a JIT those "compiler-defined durable boundaries" are called "safepoints" and they are inserted so that threads can be suspended so cross cutting concerns can be applied (GC, deoptimization)
Yup, essentially capture state now so execution can continue from it later. The difference is that this checkpoint represents compiler-known program state (live values and control position) rather than an entire process or address space. That lets it omit dead state and the completed execution prefix.
Which rough edges pushed you toward the same mechanism - history growth, replay latency, determinism/versioning, worker ops, or the programming model? Happy to compare notes.
Well checkpointing does not make an incorrect program correct. Durability just guarantees that execution can survive infrastructure failure, not that the resumed program will not encounter the same deterministic bug again.
TCC checkpoints at explicit durable boundaries rather than at an arbitrary instruction immediately before a crash. So if the next operation repeatedly fails, ordinary retry limits or operator intervention are still required.
My proposed model is to represent the recoverable program state as a committed continuation, rather than reconstructing state by replaying the completed execution history.
