From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7568 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2004 09:20:31 -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 7560 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2004 09:20:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 13 Oct 2004 09:20:30 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9D9KP0Y005123 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:20:30 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9D9KJr24494 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:20:19 -0400 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-25.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.25]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9D9KH0O016979 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:20:18 -0400 Received: by cygbert.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id A555358090; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:21:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:20:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Change gdbarch_return_value to take function type instead of return value type Message-ID: <20041013092118.GD18268@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20041012124916.GZ6702@cygbert.vinschen.de> <01c4b09e$Blat.v2.2.2$a1e9ec40@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4b09e$Blat.v2.2.2$a1e9ec40@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 On Oct 12 23:00, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:49:16 +0200 > > From: Corinna Vinschen > > > > @Eli: I've also changed the gdbarch_return_value documentation in > > gdbint.texinfo. I'm not quite sure if the @code brackets are > > correct here. Can you advice? > > The use of @code with gdbarch_return_value is correct (every > programming language symbol should be in @code). However, this: > > +This is usually done by calling @code{struct type *return_type = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (functype));} > > should use @example, like this: > > This is usually done by calling > @smallexample > struct type *return_type = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (functype)); > @endsmallexample > > Otherwise, fine; thanks. Cool, thanks. I'll use @smallexample in the final patch then. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Project Co-Leader Red Hat, Inc.