Hi Eli,

Please see revised patch, attached.
Is this ok with you now?

Michael

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>*************** finish_command (char *arg, int from_tty)
>>*** 1311,1320 ****
>>       source.  */
>>    if (from_tty)
>>      {
>>!       printf_filtered (_("Run till exit from "));
>>        print_stack_frame (get_selected_frame (NULL), 1, LOCATION);
>>      }
>>  
>>    /* If running asynchronously and the target support asynchronous
>>       execution, set things up for the rest of the finish command to be
>>       completed later on, when gdb has detected that the target has
>>--- 1303,1333 ----
>>       source.  */
>>    if (from_tty)
>>      {
>>!       if (target_get_execution_direction () == EXEC_REVERSE)
>>! 	printf_filtered ("Run back to call of ");
>>!       else
>>! 	printf_filtered ("Run till exit from ");
>>! 
>>        print_stack_frame (get_selected_frame (NULL), 1, LOCATION);
>>      }
> 
> 
> The original code was i18n-ready, but your code is not.  Please use
> _() to wrap messages we display to the user.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
>>! 	  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...).
> 
> 
>>+     case NO_HISTORY:
>>+       /* Reverse execution: target ran out of history info.  */
>>+       ui_out_text (uiout, "\nNo more reverse-execution history.\n");
> 
> 
> _(), please.
>