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: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 19:24:28 +0300
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 2/3: core interface
- References: <442DAA95.6050708@redhat.com> <uhd5da2zk.fsf@gnu.org> <20060401161016.GA23216@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 11:10:17 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> 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.
Fine with me.
> > > ! 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
Neither do I.
> Sounds to me like we need the Coding chapter of gdbint.texinfo to
> record decisions about this :-)
Why not? Feel free to write it up.