From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-40055-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 22330 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2005 22:48:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 22316 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2005 22:48:39 -0000
Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:48:39 +0000
Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p136-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.136])
	by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466E6541317;
	Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:48:36 +1200 (NZST)
Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501)
	id 5A01D62A99; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:18:02 +0100 (BST)
From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17076.40345.707267.980803@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:48:00 -0000
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames
In-Reply-To: <u64wb29pg.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <17075.21529.964955.923197@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
	<20050617230130.GB21178@nevyn.them.org>
	<20050617231425.GA22254@nevyn.them.org>
	<17075.30993.384316.356236@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
	<20050618015756.GA30430@nevyn.them.org>
	<uhdfw10go.fsf@gnu.org>
	<17075.57612.684597.392526@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
	<u64wb29pg.fsf@gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > >  > Is the actual/new behavior any different, and if so, how?
 > > 
 > > The only behaviour that I've changed is that -stack-selected-frame must
 > > have an argument.  This now accurately reflects existing documentation.

(I mean -stack-select-frame, of course)

 > But the above snippet is taken from the documentation of
 > "-stack-list-frames", not from "-stack-selected-frame".  How is that
 > relevant?

As you maintain the documentation, I took the question to mean
"Does the documentation reflect the actual/new behaviour".  I replied
about new behaviour. -stack-list-frames hasn't been changed and AFAIK
the documentation about it is accurate.

Nick