On Saturday 20 February 2010 00:04:06 Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:54:14 +0300
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > 
> > > > +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?
> 
> I think you just did it yourself:
> 
>   The @var{thread-group} field, if present, specifies the id of the
>   thread group in whose context the library was loaded. 
> 
> Does this express what you meant?

Oh, it does. Thanks.
 
> > > > +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".
> 
> I suggest a slight variation:
> 
>   The identifier is an opaque string; frontends should not try to
>   convert it to an integer, even though it might look like one.

I've used your wording. Revised patch attached.

Thanks,

-- 
Vladimir Prus
CodeSourcery
vladimir@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x722