From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10951 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2010 19:54:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 10940 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2010 19:54:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:54:23 +0000 Received: (qmail 29487 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2010 19:54:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wind.localnet) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 Feb 2010 19:54:21 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Multiexec MI Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-14-generic-pae; KDE/4.3.2; i686; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <201001132329.30212.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <83tyup7m3d.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83tyup7m3d.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002192254.14750.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00504.txt.bz2 On Thursday 14 January 2010 00:04:38 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Vladimir Prus > > Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:29:30 +0300 > > > > This patch implements MI support for multiexec. I attach my notes on design, as well > > as patch. The patch also contains documentation updates. > > Thanks. I have a few comments about the docs. Thanks for the review. > > +library are loaded. The @var{thread-group} field, if present, > > +contains the id of the thread group in which the library was loaded. > > +If the field is absent, it means the library was loaded in all present > > +thread groups. > > "Library loaded IN a thread group" sounds awkward. Did you mean > "loaded BY a thread group"? My intention was to say that shared library has appeared *in* a context of a thread thread. "BY" does not work as well for the second sentence -- "was loaded in all present thread groups" will sound awkward with "by". Is there another way to reword this? > > +Identifier of the thread group. This field is always present. The > > +identifier is an opaque string, and is not necessary an integer. > ^^^^^^^^^ > "necessarily" > > Also, "is an opaque string, and is not necessarily an integer" sounds > strange: if it's a string, how can it be an integer? Do you mean to > say that the string includes non-digit characters? How about: "The identifier is an opaque string; frontends should not try to convert it to integer". Thanks, -- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery vladimir@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x722