From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-59944-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2409 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2008 12:00:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 2308 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2008 12:00:24 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:59:42 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KAB00100O113M00@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:01:31 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.205.49]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KAB00FZFO2JMIO2@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:01:31 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:28:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA] Process record and replay, 8/10
In-reply-to: <daef60380811100628u7a774f8aod43edc7f0810145a@mail.gmail.com>
X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il
To: teawater <teawater@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <uljvmo6vo.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <daef60380811052350v3232a91ep6241e687f2f18be@mail.gmail.com> <uljvvsg85.fsf@gnu.org> <daef60380811100628u7a774f8aod43edc7f0810145a@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: 2008-11/txt/msg00335.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:28:24 +0800
> From: teawater <teawater@gmail.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > 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?

I don't mind.

> >> +    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.

I'd suggest to tell this in the manual.