From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4172 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 06:24:31 -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 4165 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 06:24:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 06:24:30 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h146OOe08124; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 00:24:24 -0600 Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:24:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302040624.h146OOe08124@duracef.shout.net> To: eliz@is.elta.co.il Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] correct info about best C++ compilers/debug formats Cc: carlton@math.stanford.edu, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00104.txt.bz2 The only testing I did was to build gdb (hey, it takes only 10 minutes) and then look at the 'makeinfo' output in the log file. I didn't even read the generated info files, let alone chase references. > As long as we are testing, perhaps someone could find a moment and TeX > the manual, to see that the additions typeset well. This falls in my self-claimed charter of "gdb quality assurance". I've added this to my todo list. Can you give me a brain dump of how to QA the manuals: what software I need to have, what procedures to follow, how to check the output, things that often go wrong. Michael C