From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4354 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2003 19:23:22 -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 4347 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 19:23:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bilbo.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.18) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 19:23:21 -0000 Received: from zaretsky ([80.230.235.153]) by bilbo.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.2.2-GA) with ESMTP id AET44267; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:22:46 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 19:23:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: carlton@math.stanford.edu Message-Id: <1659-Mon03Feb2003211953+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, drow@mvista.com, mec@shout.net In-reply-to: (message from David Carlton on 03 Feb 2003 10:27:30 -0800) Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] correct info about best C++ compilers/debug formats Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 > From: David Carlton > Date: 03 Feb 2003 10:27:30 -0800 > > * Eli: Is the TeXinfo okay? Yes, except that there's a typo in the last sentence: "debugg". (I recommend "M-x ispell-region RET" after you change something in the manuals.) > What about the choice of cindex entries? > When I actually looked at the index, I found that it generated three > consecutive entries "C++ and ..." that all pointed at the same > place Right, it is not useful to have multiple index entries which all start with the same string and point to the same place. > I'm tempted to get rid of the C++ and GCC entry, since that's > really a special case of C++ and compilers. I suggest the following index entries: @cindex debugging C@t{++} programs @cindex C@t{++} compilers @cindex debug formats and C@t{++} @cindex @value{NGCC} and C@t{++} Thanks!