Re: [RFA] Reverse debugging, part 2/3: core interface

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> *************** finish_command (char *arg, int from_tty)
> *** 1311,1320 ****
>        source.  */
>     if (from_tty)
>       {
> !       printf_filtered (_("Run till exit from "));
>         print_stack_frame (get_selected_frame (NULL), 1, LOCATION);
>       }
>   
>     /* If running asynchronously and the target support asynchronous
>        execution, set things up for the rest of the finish command to be
>        completed later on, when gdb has detected that the target has
> --- 1303,1333 ----
>        source.  */
>     if (from_tty)
>       {
> !       if (target_get_execution_direction () == EXEC_REVERSE)
> ! 	printf_filtered ("Run back to call of ");
> !       else
> ! 	printf_filtered ("Run till exit from ");
> ! 
>         print_stack_frame (get_selected_frame (NULL), 1, LOCATION);
>       }

The original code was i18n-ready, but your code is not.  Please use
_() to wrap messages we display to the user.

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?

> ! 	  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...).

> +     case NO_HISTORY:
> +       /* Reverse execution: target ran out of history info.  */
> +       ui_out_text (uiout, "\nNo more reverse-execution history.\n");

_(), please.