Re: [RFA, 2 of 3] save/restore process record, part 2 (core ops target)

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:08:50 -0700
> > From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
> > CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, 
> >  "teawater@gmail.com" <teawater@gmail.com>
> >
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > --------------040403070509020904040303
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:24:43 -0700
> > > > From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
> > > >
> > > > +  if (!tmp_to_resume)
> > > > +    error (_("Process record can't get to_resume."));
> > > > +  if (!tmp_to_wait)
> > > > +    error (_("Process record can't get to_wait."));
> > > > +  if (!tmp_to_store_registers)
> > > > +    error (_("Process record can't get to_store_registers."));
> > > > +  if (!tmp_to_insert_breakpoint)
> > > > +    error (_("Process record can't get to_insert_breakpoint."));
> > > > +  if (!tmp_to_remove_breakpoint)
> > > > +    error (_("Process record can't get to_remove_breakpoint."));
> > > Can we rephrase these to be more user-friendly?  As written, this text
> > > is okay for debug printouts, but not for user-level error messages,
> > > IMO.  (Yes, I know this text was in the old version, but still...)
> > No problem, see revised diff (attached).  However, in the unlikely
> > event that these occur, there won't be anything that the user can
> > do about it.
>
> Thanks, the revised text is fine with me.

And committed.