I’d prefer compact, one-line (error) messages. A longer explanation can go into the manual or in the help text. E.g. Stopping replaying at end of execution history and Stopping at beginning of execution history Markus. From: Alex Chronopoulos Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 7:17 PM To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Pedro Alves ; Metzger, Markus T ; Guinevere Larsen Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Change message when reaching end of reverse history. 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 > 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. Intel Deutschland GmbH Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau Registered Office: Munich Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928