From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32578 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2004 15:01:06 -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 32563 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2004 15:01:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Jul 2004 15:01:05 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id B4BED47D91; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 08:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 15:01:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Enhance GDB to break inside DSO init code Message-ID: <20040724150104.GP20596@gnat.com> References: <20040723202447.GM20596@gnat.com> <7494-Sat24Jul2004105517+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7494-Sat24Jul2004105517+0300-eliz@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2 > Why, oh why do people go to such great lengths to explain this in a > mail message and/or in the comments to the code, but not as a patch to > gdbint.texinfo? Why not invest a small additional effort (Texinfo > markup) to improve our documentation together with fixing a bug? To me, explainations about the code belong in the code. When reading some code I don't know about, I appreciate explainations located right besides the code I'm trying to understand. I usually don't remember to look into gdbint or any other document, and besides, it's incovenient to have to search it, to see if there would be any additional info there. If I had to make a suggestion, I would embed all the information from gdbint inside the code, and make gdbint a document generated from the code. -- Joel