Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:24:43 -0700
>> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
>>
>> +  if (!tmp_to_resume)
>> +    error (_("Process record can't get to_resume."));
>> +  if (!tmp_to_wait)
>> +    error (_("Process record can't get to_wait."));
>> +  if (!tmp_to_store_registers)
>> +    error (_("Process record can't get to_store_registers."));
>> +  if (!tmp_to_insert_breakpoint)
>> +    error (_("Process record can't get to_insert_breakpoint."));
>> +  if (!tmp_to_remove_breakpoint)
>> +    error (_("Process record can't get to_remove_breakpoint."));
> 
> Can we rephrase these to be more user-friendly?  As written, this text
> is okay for debug printouts, but not for user-level error messages,
> IMO.  (Yes, I know this text was in the old version, but still...)

No problem, see revised diff (attached).  However, in the unlikely
event that these occur, there won't be anything that the user can
do about it.


>> +  //if (strcmp (current_target.to_shortname, "record_core") == 0)
>> +  //record_load ();
> 
> C++-style comments?

It is just to comment out a reference to a function that will not
be present until the third patch.  I'll take it out.

Thanks for your review.