From: Alex Chronopoulos <achronop@gmail.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>,
"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>,
Guinevere Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Change message when reaching end of reverse history.
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 20:16:50 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN7Yog4v=iQ7tOMrNdz-vMUiWcVLOMfShYsUzL2v8-D+SEZHkg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <72c908ba-26c4-48c1-bedb-b75aad0c3733@palves.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3216 bytes --]
Thank you, Pedro. No worries, it's still early enough :)
I like your suggestions and would happily follow them. I believe they are
clear and leave fewer questions for the user.
I also prefer the extended version for the backward case. However, I don't
want to make the final call. I'll wait for others to comment, and I'll
update the patch when we have the final version.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:36 PM Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> wrote:
> Sorry for not chiming in earlier...
>
> On 2024-04-14 20:36, Alex Chronopoulos wrote:
> > In a record session, when we move backward, GDB switches from normal
> > execution to simulation. Moving forward again, the emulation continues
> > until the end of the reverse history. When the end is reached, the
> > execution stops, and a warning message is shown. This message has been
> > modified to indicate that the forward emulation has reached the end, but
> > the execution can continue as normal, and the recording will also
> continue.
> >
> > Before this patch, the warning message shown in that case was the same as
> > in the reverse case. This meant that when the end of history was reached
> in
> > either backward or forward emulation, the same message was displayed:
> >
> > "No more reverse-execution history."
> >
> > This message remains for backward emulation. However, in forward
> emulation,
> > it has been modified to:
> >
> > "End of recorded history; following steps will be added to history."
> >
>
> IMO, "steps" here is confusing. It's ambiguous with stepping. Like as if
> you're saying that the following "step" commands will be added to history.
> "But what about if I continue??"
>
> It also isn't true that "following steps will be added to history.". If
> the user does "reverse-continue" for example, they won't, they're
> already there...
>
> The following tweak would be more accurate and not have that "step"
> confusion, IMO:
>
> "End of recorded history; following forward execution will be added to
> history."
>
> and it's still under 80 chars.
>
> Except it fells a bit awkward, for not stating that we're stopping before
> talking about following execution. This would be clearer to me:
>
> Reached end of recorded history; stopping.
> Following forward execution will be added to history.
>
>
> Also, with the patch, we have these two messages, for the forward case:
>
> End of recorded history; following steps will be added to history.
>
> and for the reverse case:
>
> No more reverse-execution history.
>
> I read the v1/v2 discussions, and I have to say that I don't understand how
> the potential user confusion that led to changing the "No more
> reverse-execution"
> wording in the forward case doesn't apply to the reverse case... I think
> we should be consistent.
>
> With my suggestion above, we could have:
>
> forward:
>
> Reached end of recorded history; stopping.
> Following forward execution will be added to history.
>
> backward:
>
> Reached end of recorded history; stopping.
>
> or, backward:
>
> Reached end of recorded history; stopping.
> Backward execution from here not possible.
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-03 17:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-14 19:36 Alex Chronopoulos
2024-04-15 10:59 ` Eli Zaretskii
2024-04-23 13:33 ` Guinevere Larsen
2024-04-23 14:03 ` Metzger, Markus T
2024-04-23 17:22 ` Guinevere Larsen
2024-04-23 19:36 ` Pedro Alves
2024-05-03 17:16 ` Alex Chronopoulos [this message]
2024-05-06 5:19 ` Metzger, Markus T
2024-05-06 14:50 ` Guinevere Larsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAN7Yog4v=iQ7tOMrNdz-vMUiWcVLOMfShYsUzL2v8-D+SEZHkg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=achronop@gmail.com \
--cc=blarsen@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=markus.t.metzger@intel.com \
--cc=pedro@palves.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).