From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-59280-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 8452 invoked by alias); 16 Oct 2008 07:02:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 8441 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Oct 2008 07:02:22 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout4.012.net.il (HELO mtaout4.012.net.il) (84.95.2.10)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:01:43 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.24.3]) by i_mtaout4.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K8T001VYKX2VX90@i_mtaout4.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:03:03 +0200 (IST)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:02:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [reverse RFC] Add documentation for process record and replay
In-reply-to: <daef60380810151909t9382697u5e78b1d90097270@mail.gmail.com>
X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il
To: teawater <teawater@gmail.com>
Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <ubpxlnhut.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <daef60380810140800i67753d42jaaf9ef6325756ecd@mail.gmail.com> <uwsgbnnkg.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380810142250v41c3dcbdk4bff89725d329ea1@mail.gmail.com> <uod1mnx1z.fsf@gnu.org> <48F63B15.3070705@vmware.com> <uej2hod8w.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380810151909t9382697u5e78b1d90097270@mail.gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00396.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:09:33 +0800
> From: teawater <teawater@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@vmware.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> How about change it to "if the next instruction has the execution log for it"?

I think this is better:

   if the execution log includes the record for the next instruction, ...