From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15390 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2005 13:33:47 -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 15294 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2005 13:33:37 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:33:37 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51) id 1DjGy7-0006I1-NA; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:33:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] -stack-select-frame Message-ID: <20050617133311.GB23901@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17072.62436.183299.55978@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050616044209.GA5907@nevyn.them.org> <17073.5179.249482.402135@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050616132120.GA5277@nevyn.them.org> <17074.566.194312.713028@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050616234728.GA14260@nevyn.them.org> <17074.16093.924351.774111@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050617032149.GF17013@nevyn.them.org> <17074.32276.804157.95131@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00255.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:14:56PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Nick Roberts > > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:39:00 +1200 > > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > > > -stack-info-frame hasn't been implemented yet (I've think we've been here > > > > before) but it would probably be quite easy to implement and I guess it > > > > could work like I've made -stack-select-frame without an argument work. > > > > > > *snicker* that's what I get for reading the manual. I assumed it was > > > implemented. > > > > > > Maybe it is time to mark the unimplemented commands in the manual? > > > > It _is_ documented as unimplemented in my copy. > > Well, not really ``documented as''. The manual says that commands > whose "Example" section says "N.A." are not implemented, but a reader > who reads a description of a certain command will not necessarily > deduce that. It took me a few minutes poking through the manual to find this, even after you told me it was there... > I think we should simply @ignore-out such commands. I'm OK with that, especially if you prefer it. I'd like to either do that, or expand the N.A. to be explicit ("N.A.@: - not implemented yet"). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC