From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
To: Stefan Weyergraf <stefan@weyergraf.de>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] implements MI "-file-list-exec-sections" (updated)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 20:14:00 -0000
Message-id: <40A285A8.50801@gnu.org>
References: <200404222356.57808.stefan@weyergraf.de> <409AA124.6050601@gnu.org> <200405070007.45521.stefan@weyergraf.de>
X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00380.html

> -@code{"&" @var{c-string}}
> +@code{"&" @var{c-string} @var{nl}}
>
>  @item @var{nl} @expansion{}
>  @code{CR | CR-LF}

This part all looks correct, can you just post it separatly with a
ChangeLog.
OK
...

> -static void core_files_info (struct target_ops *);
> +static void core_files_info (struct target_ops *, struct ui_out *);

Again, just this part (through out) is all ok, can you please post it.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean here.
Do you mean that the change to the *_info(...) _interface_ is all ok?
Yes.  By separating it out we make it mechanical and hence can slip it in.

Or the interface plus implementation (main work being in exec_info(), the
others (core, go32, hpux, child, monitor, etc..) considered as follow-ups)?
Or the changes to mi/cmd-file.cc and mi/mi-cmds.cc?
Or all 3? (which I hope)

>},
> +{start-address="0x0804970c",end-address="0x08049710",section-name=".bss"
>}]}] +(@value{GDBP})
> +@end smallexample

I like it.  But lets get the other changes in first.
Are you really only talking about the doc-changes here? If that's true and
(thus) you are agreeing to my main (ie. gdb/mi source code) changes, why
would we want to wait here?
I've just looked at the doc.  Next is to look at the updated and 
separate implementation.

Andrew