This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Process record and replay, 8/10
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:33:46 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Process record and replay, 8/10
- References: <daef60380811052350v3232a91ep6241e687f2f18be@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:50:44 +0800
> From: teawater <teawater@gmail.com>
>
> 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.
> + /* XXX: index == 4 is always invalid */
Why the XXX in this comment?
> + /* 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?
> + 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".
By the way, do we need debug messages to be translatable? Other
similar places in the patches don't have them in _().
> + case 0x9b:
> + printf_unfiltered (_
> + ("Process record don't support instruction fwait.\n"));
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"doesn't support"
By the way, what happens if the code stream includes one of these
``unsupported'' instructions? What will the user see at replay time?