From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28158 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2009 17:33:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 28130 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Apr 2009 17:33:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:33:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6B12BAC4E; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id AgjtaDXbw0zo; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B582BAB93; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EF253F5A13; Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:33:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/doco] Document task-specific breakpoints Message-ID: <20090409173304.GK7535@adacore.com> References: <20090325214556.GD9472@adacore.com> <20090325220236.GF9472@adacore.com> <20090326223902.GL9472@adacore.com> <20090409165926.GJ7535@adacore.com> <8363hd4uhq.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8363hd4uhq.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00183.txt.bz2 > In general, it is not a very good idea to have several > cross-references to close in the same sentence. Something like the > following might be better: > > @xref{Thread-Specific Breakpoints}, for more about this. For > Ada-specific aspects, see @ref{Ada Tasks}. I agree with what you are saying, except that I think that the actual suggestion does not flow well with the way the paragraph is written. Currently, we have: It is also possible to insert a breakpoint that will stop the program only if a specific thread or a specific task hits that breakpoint. @xref{Thread-Specific Breakpoints} and @ref{Ada Tasks} for more information about this feature. Basically, we say: thread-specific breakpoint, or task-specific breakpoint. Then xref thread-specific. Then xref task-specific. Perhaps it'd be better to move the reference links to where the actual reference is. But I couldn't find a way that satisfied me either. So I propose the following in the end: It is also possible to insert a breakpoint that will stop the program only if a specific thread or a specific task hits that breakpoint. @xref{Thread-Specific Breakpoints}, and @ref{Ada Tasks}, for more information about this feature. (adding the coma after each ref). WDYT? Thanks, -- Joel