Re: RFA: "maint print type" should print all the flag bits

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 05:47:26PM -0800, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 07:20:06PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >
> >>> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 07:40:48 -0800
> >>> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> >>> 
> >>> Perhaps there needs to be a developers manual?
> >
> >>
> >>That's a possibility.  However, the number of maint commands is quite
> >>small, and hardly warrants a separate manual.
> >>
> >>How about having an Appendix where all maint commands would be
> >>documented?
> >
> >
> >We have an internals manual, don't we?  The maint commands are only
> >useful if you're wandering around in the internals.  So why not say as
> >much in the user manual, and document them in the internals manual?
> 
> 
> I think the ``maint'' commands are like the ``remote protocol spec'' and 
> the MI interface.  While not for the average user, they do define 
> external user accessable interfaces to GDB.

In that case, I'd almost rather rename the Internals manual to a
Developers manual - for development involving, rather than using but
not necessarily directly on, GDB.

I don't consider that fit for the User's manual.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer