From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27725 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2002 17:52:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27666 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2002 17:52:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2002 17:52:36 -0000 Received: from telocity.telocity.com (taarna.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.102]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA04658; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:52:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C45BCCB.17BC@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:52:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New command "info proc" for Linux References: <3C45B35B.653A@redhat.com> <8011-Wed16Jan2002192316+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00456.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:07:39 -0800 > > From: Michael Snyder > > > > > > Michael, please don't forget the documentation. Thanks. > > > > Not straightforward. Couple of issues: > > > > 1) The old implementation of the "info proc" command was > > poorly documented -- many of the documented sub-commands > > were never implemented. And the command was only available > > on "/proc" systems (real ones, not Linux). > > > > 2) The stuff I've just added will ONLY work on Linux, > > not on other ("real") /proc systems. > > Does that mean the functionality of this command differs on these two > classes of systems? If so, we could: > > (a) document the functionality on both classes, telling which parts > work on what systems; > > or > > (b) document the GNU/Linux functionality that you just added, and > leave the docs of what the command does on ``real'' /proc systems as > it is now. > > The latter will probably be easier for you (no need to figure out code > written by someone else ;-), and it doesn't make the situation worse > than it is now. So I won't object if you do only (b). (If you do, it > is possible that the Linux-specific docs could go into a new > subsection of the "Native" node, where system-specific features are > described. > > Does that address your concerns? Yeah, except I don't know how to make a nnew node, and I would have to think about where to put it. ;-)