This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 2/3: core interface
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 11:10:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 2/3: core interface
- References: <442DAA95.6050708@redhat.com> <uhd5da2zk.fsf@gnu.org>
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.
> > ! 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, and I can't find the message now (just
spent twenty minutes searching for it). I did find a thread saying
that we agreed to translate internal error messages, which I thought
we'd decided not to. I think that the arguments given in that thread
imply that we should not translate debugging messages.
(That was here:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-02/msg00083.html
)
Sounds to me like we need the Coding chapter of gdbint.texinfo to
record decisions about this :-)
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery