From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1779 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2006 16:10:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 1771 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Apr 2006 16:10:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:10:27 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FPig5-00066O-NB; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:10:17 -0500 Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 2/3: core interface Message-ID: <20060401161016.GA23216@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <442DAA95.6050708@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 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