From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21374 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2011 00:27:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 21363 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2011 00:27:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 00:26:55 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RIrKY-0002vB-E6 from Stan_Shebs@mentor.com for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:26:54 -0700 Received: from na2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com ([134.86.114.213]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:26:18 -0700 Received: from [172.30.4.12] ([172.30.4.12]) by na2-mail.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:26:52 -0600 Message-ID: <4EA753C4.60408@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:06:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Status of 'blacklist' patch? References: <4E8DCE67.80507@earthlink.net> <4E92E639.7000402@earthlink.net> <83ipnjs9i1.fsf@gnu.org> <83ipndc92n.fsf@gnu.org> <83ehy0ded8.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00689.txt.bz2 On 10/25/2011 01:16 PM, Justin Lebar wrote: > In the unlikely case that I actually opened the manual (not because > it's no good, but because most people I know who use GDB aren't aware > of the manual -- it's not well-linked on the web), I think the fact > that there are |skip file| and |skip function| commands would clear > things up pretty quickly. > > There's a cost to a comment like this; it's not useful to most > readers, but they have to parse it anyway. (What the heck does "skip > function file" mean?) Another purpose for having niggling details in the manual is that in the absence of a formal specification, the manual is our promise to users of what they should expect to work, and how it will work. So users find themselves referring to the manual when they try something that seems obvious, and are surprised that it doesn't work as expected. > But again, I don't really have a stake in this either way. I just > want to get my patch in. :) I'd like to see a new rollup with all the feedback incorporated, I've lost track of the state... :-) Stan