From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15865 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2002 20:37:46 -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 15857 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2002 20:37:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2002 20:37:44 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7QKMol26789 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:22:50 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7QKbbu15713; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:37:37 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (IDENT:XgT9uBtXPjNqVEK2nRdbylmTXzK4RnEi@romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7QKbZe08554; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:37:36 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7QKbXk32101; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:37:33 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:52:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020826203733.ZM32100@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [patch/wip] Save/restore cooked registers" (Aug 26, 2:21pm) References: <3D692D27.4010003@ges.redhat.com> <1020826155511.ZM30766@localhost.localdomain> <15722.22357.397126.473082@localhost.redhat.com> <1020826172622.ZM31173@localhost.localdomain> <3D6A7191.2070003@ges.redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: [patch/wip] Save/restore cooked registers Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00865.txt.bz2 On Aug 26, 2:21pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > I've looked over Andrew's WIP patch. I haven't checked all the details, > > but the ideas seem sound and the interfaces look okay. I'd like to see > > the iterators better commented though. > > The doco will go in: > gdbint.texinfo:Registers:Saving and Restoring Registers. As I understand it, functions should be commented in the source files too. (Cf. http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_24.html#SEC24) When I'm working on gdb, I find it more convenient to go to the location of the function declaration / definition and read the associated comment. I do look at the texinfo document too, but only as a last resort. (I trust it less, plus I find that the markup gets in the way of easy comprehension.) > Hence ``wip'' :-) Okay. Kevin