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

Michael Snyder
2009-10-22T19:43:18Z

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 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.
>

And committed.