Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 2/3: core interface

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 03:34:39PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> In addition, I think "Run back to call of FOO" is not very clear.  I
> wanted to suggest "Run to entry to FOO", but then I realized it would
> be a lie: we do back up past the entry, to the instruction that
> actually calls the function we are in, right?  Perhaps "Run back to
> before the call to FOO" is better, even though it is wordier?

How about "Run back to call site of FOO"?  That's a pretty clear term.

> > ! 	  if (debug_infrun)
> > ! 	    fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, 
> > ! 				"infrun: stepped to a different function\n");
> 
> _() is missing around the message string (yes, I know it was missing
> in the original code as well, but...).

I thought we'd decided not to translate debug messages.

But I can't remember for sure, and I can't find the message now (just
spent twenty minutes searching for it).  I did find a thread saying
that we agreed to translate internal error messages, which I thought
we'd decided not to.  I think that the arguments given in that thread
imply that we should not translate debugging messages.

(That was here:
  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-02/msg00083.html
)

Sounds to me like we need the Coding chapter of gdbint.texinfo to
record decisions about this :-)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery