Re: [RFA] Process record and replay, 8/10

[teawater <teawater at gmail dot com>]

Thanks Eli.

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 23:33, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> 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.

I will change it.

>
>> +      /* XXX: index == 4 is always invalid */
>
> Why the XXX in this comment?
>

It's mean maybe it need  be deal with in the furure.

>> +      /* 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?

I am not sure. Could you tell me?

>
>> +         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".

I will fix it.

>
> 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?

>
>> +    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. And I think most of time user will not meat these
instructions. They are high-prerogative instructions.