Re: [rfc/rfa:doc] INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS; Was: INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS(), thoughts?

Eli Zaretskii
2001-10-02T00:11:00Z

> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:55:46 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
>
> Attached is a revised patch. I've also added a pragmatics section to
> the relevant documentation.

Approved, with these minor corrections:

> + @item INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS (@var{type}, @var{buf})
> + @findex INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS

I suggest "@cindex converting integers to addresses" here.

> + compiler does. When the user copies a well defined expression from
> + their source code and hand it to a @code{print} command, they should get
> + the same value as would have been computed by the target program.

Since most of this sentence is in plural, I think it should start with
"When the users copy".

> + needs to be justified carefully. In other words, GDB doesn't really
> + have the freedom to do these conversions in clever and useful ways. It
> + has, however, been pointed out that users aren't complaining about how
> + GDB casts integers to pointers; they are complaining that they can't

"GDB" should be "@value{GDBN}".

> + Adding an architecture method like @code{INTEGER_TO_ADDRESS} certainly
> + makes it possible for GDB to "get it right" in all circumstances.}

Texinfo sources should use `` and '' instead of " for quoting.

There's also at least one place with a single space between two
sentences.