From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9912 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2004 15:29:54 -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 9904 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2004 15:29:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2004 15:29:53 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.144.65]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BMR16024; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:28:55 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:29:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: David Carlton Message-Id: <1659-Sat20Mar2004172615+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from David Carlton on Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:43:48 -0800) Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Add meaningful section titles to PROBLEMS Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <405B1CE3.2070007@gnu.org> <405B2EF0.6050009@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2 > From: David Carlton > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:43:48 -0800 > > > As for some of the others, I think they would be better served as > > notes in the documentation (i.e., gdb.texinfo). > > That's a good point - if we want to make users aware of certain > well-known bugs, then gdb.texinfo is a much more visible place than > PROBLEMS. I disagree: we should certainly NOT document our bugs in the manual. > (Nobody will see PROBLEMS other than possibly the specific > individual, if any, who is installing that version of GDB by hand.) > GCC has a section of known bugs in its manual; we should follow suit. Why not follow suit of Emacs (which does have PROBLEMS, but not a section about known bugs in the manual). Note that PROBLEMS might mention problems that are actually bugs in other related software, not necessarily in GDB per se. Are we going to document them in the manual as well? I don't think so.