From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19331 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2010 21:36:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 19322 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Feb 2010 21:36:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:36:12 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE392D04E; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:36:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.124.101] (promd-2s-dhcp101.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.101]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C18C9A2C; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:36:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B75C9C6.1090101@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:36:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: Vladimir Prus , "jakob@virtutech.com" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: GDB MI Reverse Commands added [2 of 3] References: <00cf01ca265a$d4110dc0$7c332940$@com> <4B292EC9.1010303@vmware.com> <83d42e7klb.fsf@gnu.org> <200912162345.37121.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <837hsl73up.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <837hsl73up.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg00328.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Vladimir Prus >> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:45:37 +0300 >> Cc: Michael Snyder , >> jakob@virtutech.com, >> gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> >> I am mildly concerned that the important high-level functionality is >> only documented as option to specific commands, and as this functionality >> is exercised and documentation is improved, we'll end up with information >> scattered over N commands. > > Ah, that's a valid concern. How about if we do both: document the > "--reverse" option with each command _and_ add a section with an > overview of this feature? > >> But let's wait and see -- right now, there's not so much information >> there. > > Agreed. > > So the patch is clear to go in, as far as I'm concerned. Checked in, after private email from Volodya.