From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4787 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2006 16:24:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 4717 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Apr 2006 16:24:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:24:34 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-235-218.inter.net.il [83.130.235.218]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DWI86591 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 1 Apr 2006 19:24:27 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:24:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20060401161016.GA23216@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sat, 1 Apr 2006 11:10:17 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 2/3: core interface Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <442DAA95.6050708@redhat.com> <20060401161016.GA23216@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 11:10:17 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 03:34:39PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > 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? > > How about "Run back to call site of FOO"? That's a pretty clear term. Fine with me. > > > ! 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...). > > I thought we'd decided not to translate debug messages. > > But I can't remember for sure Neither do I. > Sounds to me like we need the Coding chapter of gdbint.texinfo to > record decisions about this :-) Why not? Feel free to write it up.