[RFA/doco] Add documentation for the ``minimal'' language

[RFA/doco] Add documentation for the ``minimal'' language

[Joel Brobecker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 338 bytes --]

Hello,

here is a first shot at providing some documentation regarding the
new pseudo-language we added not-so-recently. There isn't much to say...
Does it look ok?

2003-06-12  J. Brobecker  <brobecker@gnat.com>

        * gdb.texinfo (Unsupported languages): New section.
        (Languages): Add link to new section.

Thanks,
-- 
Joel

[-- Attachment #2: gdb-doc-minimal.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1572 bytes --]

Index: gdb.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.164
diff -c -3 -r1.164 gdb.texinfo
*** gdb.texinfo	9 Jun 2003 21:12:19 -0000	1.164
--- gdb.texinfo	13 Jun 2003 00:59:33 -0000
***************
*** 7436,7441 ****
--- 7436,7442 ----
  * Show::                        Displaying the language
  * Checks::                      Type and range checks
  * Support::                     Supported languages
+ * Unsupported languages::       Unsupported languages
  @end menu
  
  @node Setting
***************
*** 8841,8846 ****
--- 8842,8863 ----
  @cindex @code{#} in Modula-2
  In @value{GDBN} scripts, the Modula-2 inequality operator @code{#} is
  interpreted as the beginning of a comment.  Use @code{<>} instead.
+ 
+ @node Unsupported languages
+ @section Unsupported languages
+ 
+ @cindex Unsupported languages
+ @cindex Minimal language
+ In addition to the other fully-supported languages, @value{GDBN}
+ also provides a pseudo-language, called @code{minimal}.  It does
+ not represent a real-language, but provides a set of capabilities
+ close to what the C or assembly languages provide.  This should allow
+ most simple operations to be performed while debugging an application
+ that uses a languages currently not supported by @value{GDBN}.
+ 
+ If the language is set to @code{auto}, @value{GDBN} will automatically
+ select this language if the current frame correspond to an unsupported
+ language.
  
  @node Symbols
  @chapter Examining the Symbol Table

Re: [RFA/doco] Add documentation for the ``minimal'' language

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:59:45 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
> 
> here is a first shot at providing some documentation regarding the
> new pseudo-language we added not-so-recently. There isn't much to say...
> Does it look ok?

Yes; approved.  However, before you commit this, please correct the
following minor issues:

> + @cindex Unsupported languages
> + @cindex Minimal language

Unless you use proper names (like Fortran or Pascal), the cindex
entries should _not_ be capitalized.  So please change this to begin
with a lower-case letter.

Also, please use "programming language" rather than just "language" at
least once in the text, so that the reader will not wonder what
``languages'' we are talking about.

Thanks!

Re: [RFA/doco] Add documentation for the ``minimal'' language

[Joel Brobecker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 378 bytes --]

(sorry for the delay, I was on holiday...)

> Yes; approved.  However, before you commit this, please correct the
> following minor issues:

Thanks. Applied after making the small adjustments you pointed out.
Since I also found a couple of typos, I fixed them too. Here is the
change I ended up committing.

Shall I go ahead, and commit this change to the branch too?

-- 
Joel

[-- Attachment #2: minimal-doc.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1500 bytes --]

Index: gdb.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.167
diff -u -r1.167 gdb.texinfo
--- gdb.texinfo	23 Jun 2003 03:28:14 -0000	1.167
+++ gdb.texinfo	24 Jun 2003 21:56:44 -0000
@@ -7437,6 +7437,7 @@
 * Show::                        Displaying the language
 * Checks::                      Type and range checks
 * Support::                     Supported languages
+* Unsupported languages::       Unsupported languages
 @end menu
 
 @node Setting
@@ -8842,6 +8843,22 @@
 @cindex @code{#} in Modula-2
 In @value{GDBN} scripts, the Modula-2 inequality operator @code{#} is
 interpreted as the beginning of a comment.  Use @code{<>} instead.
+
+@node Unsupported languages
+@section Unsupported languages
+
+@cindex unsupported languages
+@cindex minimal language
+In addition to the other fully-supported programming languages,
+@value{GDBN} also provides a pseudo-language, called @code{minimal}.
+It does not represent a real programming language, but provides a set
+of capabilities close to what the C or assembly languages provide.
+This should allow most simple operations to be performed while debugging
+an application that uses a language currently not supported by @value{GDBN}.
+
+If the language is set to @code{auto}, @value{GDBN} will automatically
+select this language if the current frame corresponds to an unsupported
+language.
 
 @node Symbols
 @chapter Examining the Symbol Table

Re: [RFA/doco] Add documentation for the ``minimal'' language

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:01:55 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
> 
> Shall I go ahead, and commit this change to the branch too?

Something for Andrew to respond, I guess.

Re: [RFA/doco] Add documentation for the ``minimal'' language

[Andrew Cagney]

>> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:01:55 -0700
>> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
>> 
>> Shall I go ahead, and commit this change to the branch too?
> 
> 
> Something for Andrew to respond, I guess.

If Eli's ok, and the corresponding change is on the branch, then it 
should definitly go into the branch.

Andrew

Re: [RFA/doco] Add documentation for the ``minimal'' language

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:41:37 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
> 
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:01:55 -0700
> >> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
> >> 
> >> Shall I go ahead, and commit this change to the branch too?
> > 
> > 
> > Something for Andrew to respond, I guess.
> 
> If Eli's ok, and the corresponding change is on the branch, then it 
> should definitly go into the branch.

I thought the original question was about the code as well as the
docs, not just the docs.

If the code is already on the branch, then the docs patch should also
go there.

Re: [RFA/doco] Add documentation for the ``minimal'' language

[Joel Brobecker]

> If Eli's ok, and the corresponding change is on the branch, then it 
> should definitly go into the branch.

My thinking too, but I was applying the branch rule that says "only the
foolish will use the obvious rule on the branch" :-).

The doco change is now in, since the corresponding change was already in
the branch.

-- 
Joel