A Friday 25 April 2008 20:44:57, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Pedro Alves > > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:18:31 +0100 > > > > + add_setshow_boolean_cmd ("can-use-displaced-stepping", > > class_maintenance, + &can_use_displaced_stepping, _("\ > > +Set debugger's willingness to use displaced stepping to step \n\ > > +over breakpoints."), _("\ > > +Show debugger's willingness to use displaced stepping to step \n\ > > +over breakpoints."), _("\ > > These two sentences must not take more than one line, I think. That's > because some of the help commands, like apropos, only show one line, > so in this case they will show an incomplete sentence. > Ah. OK, done. Made the sentence shorter. This is a maintainance command afterall. > > +@kindex maint set can-use-displaced-stepping > > +@kindex maint show can-use-displaced-stepping > > +@cindex displaced stepping support > > +@item maint set can-use-displaced-stepping > > +@itemx maint show can-use-displaced-stepping > > +Control whether or not @value{GDBN} will do displaced stepping if the > > +target supports it. The default is on. @dfn{Displaced stepping} is a > > It is better to have @dfn at the first usage of the term, but that's a > minor nit. > Okay... I was following (from texinfo.info): " Use the `@dfn' command to identify the introductory or defining use of a technical term. (...) Mere passing mention of a term for the first time does not deserve `@dfn'. (...) As a general rule, a sentence containing the defining occurrence of a term should be a definition of the term. " ... by placing @dfn on the definition of the term. > > +way to single-step over breakpoints without removing them from the > > +inferior, by executing an out-of-line copy of the instruction that was > > +originally at the breakpoint location. It is also known as > > +out-of-line single-stepping. > > If "out-of-line single-stepping" is a term known to people, it would > be good to have an index entry here for that term. > Yep. E.g., kprobes, systemtap, are examples of people using it by that term. Done. > Otherwise, the doco bits are fine with me. > > Thanks. Thank you for the review. -- Pedro Alves