Re: [RFA, 2 of 3] save/restore process record, part 2 (core ops target)

Eli Zaretskii
2009-10-17T19:56:35Z

> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:08:50 -0700
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
> CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
> "teawater@gmail.com" <teawater@gmail.com>
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------040403070509020904040303
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> 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.

Thanks, the revised text is fine with me.