From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22618 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2004 21:09:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22609 invoked from network); 12 Oct 2004 21:09:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Oct 2004 21:09:19 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-195-145.inter.net.il [80.230.195.145]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CUS35626 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:04:00 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:09:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <01c4b09e$Blat.v2.2.2$a1e9ec40@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: <20041012124916.GZ6702@cygbert.vinschen.de> (message from Corinna Vinschen on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:49:16 +0200) Subject: Re: [RFA] Change gdbarch_return_value to take function type instead of return value type Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20041012124916.GZ6702@cygbert.vinschen.de> X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00217.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:49:16 +0200 > From: Corinna Vinschen > > @Eli: I've also changed the gdbarch_return_value documentation in > gdbint.texinfo. I'm not quite sure if the @code brackets are > correct here. Can you advice? The use of @code with gdbarch_return_value is correct (every programming language symbol should be in @code). However, this: +This is usually done by calling @code{struct type *return_type = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (functype));} should use @example, like this: This is usually done by calling @smallexample struct type *return_type = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (functype)); @endsmallexample Otherwise, fine; thanks.