From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24579 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2008 14:29:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 23642 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2008 14:29:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (HELO ti-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.142.185) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:28:32 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so1589543tib.12 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.110.47.17 with SMTP id u17mr8023257tiu.19.1226327304890; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.110.103.3 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:28:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:41:00 -0000 From: teawater To: "Eli Zaretskii" Subject: Re: [RFA] Process record and replay, 8/10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-11/txt/msg00171.txt.bz2 Thanks Eli. On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 23:33, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:50:44 +0800 >> From: teawater >> >> This patch add code to make I386 architecture support process record and replay. > > Thanks. > >> + printf_unfiltered (_("Process record: read memeory 0x%s error.\n"), > ^^^^^^^ > A typo. (There are several more like it.) > > Also, I suggest to say "error 0x%s", not "0x%s error". The latter is > confusing for the ears of an English speaker, I think. I will change it. > >> + /* XXX: index == 4 is always invalid */ > > Why the XXX in this comment? > It's mean maybe it need be deal with in the furure. >> + /* arith & logic */ >> + case 0x00 ... 0x05: >> + case 0x08 ... 0x0d: >> + case 0x10 ... 0x15: >> + case 0x18 ... 0x1d: >> + case 0x20 ... 0x25: >> + case 0x28 ... 0x2d: >> + case 0x30 ... 0x35: >> + case 0x38 ... 0x3d: > > Is this valid ISO C? I am not sure. Could you tell me? > >> + if (record_debug) >> + printf_unfiltered (_ >> + ("Process record ignores the memory change of instruction in address 0x%s because it can't get the value of the segment register.\n"), > ^^^^^^^^^^ > "at address". I will fix it. > > By the way, do we need debug messages to be translatable? Other > similar places in the patches don't have them in _(). Maybe. Can I keep them? > >> + case 0x9b: >> + printf_unfiltered (_ >> + ("Process record don't support instruction fwait.\n")); > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "doesn't support" I will fix it. > > By the way, what happens if the code stream includes one of these > ``unsupported'' instructions? What will the user see at replay time? > Inferior will stop. And I think most of time user will not meat these instructions. They are high-prerogative instructions.