From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21240 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 16:56:05 -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 21233 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 16:56:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 16:56:04 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFD880018E; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:56:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FCF6724.5050109@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:56:00 -0000 From: "J. Johnston" Organization: Red Hat Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: pending break support References: <3FCD3DC5.8000308@redhat.com> <3405-Wed03Dec2003180427+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <3FCE3DA9.2000603@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:46:49 -0500 >>From: "J. Johnston" >> >>How about the following updated patch? I tied together why I was talking about >>the various operations on pending breakpoints which makes the grouping of the >>information make more sense. > > > Okay. I'm down to nit-picking now: > No problem. > >>+If a specified breakpoint location cannot be found, you will be prompted >>+as to whether you want to make the breakpoint pending on a future shared > > > I'd replace "you will be prompted" with "@value{GDBN} will prompt > you". Native English speakers keep telling me that using passive > forms is BAD. > Ok. > >>+Normal breakpoint operations apply to pending breakpoints as well. You may >>+specify, a condition for a pending breakpoint, commands to run when the > > ^ > The comma I marked should not be there, I think. > I put the comma because you can specify a condition and you can specify commands. Without it, the next part of the sentence doesn't make sense. I didn't want to reuse specify as that made the sentence feel redundant. I think maybe the best idea would be to use "or" instead of the commas. How about: Normal breakpoint operations apply to pending breakpoints as well. You may specify a condition for a pending breakpoint and/or commands to run when the breakpoint is reached. You can also enable or disable the pending breakpoint. ... > -- Jeff J.