From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15978 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2011 19:01:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 15969 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2011 19:01:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:01:33 +0000 Received: from [70.170.59.51] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1RM2XE-0004Z1-DW; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:01:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB2E4E7.1020408@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:01:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , tromey@redhat.com, justin.lebar@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Status of 'blacklist' patch? References: <83ipnjs9i1.fsf@gnu.org> <83ipndc92n.fsf@gnu.org> <83ehy0ded8.fsf@gnu.org> <4EA753C4.60408@mentor.com> <4EAF2E0E.7080508@earthlink.net> <83fwi5n9nn.fsf@gnu.org> <8362j1m5bw.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <8362j1m5bw.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da940ccc8b4c03e15cdfbb4f0adb8276abd56350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2 On 11/3/11 11:25 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:04:08 +0000 >> From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" >> CC: Eli Zaretskii,, >> , >> >> What about the other places where @subsection is used without @node -- >> are they legitimate? > They are legitimate, but having sections and subsections without a > @node makes finding them harder, since there's no commands in Info to > find a section by name, only by its node name. So I'd like to avoid > introducing more of them. > That's a good deal my fault - at one point I had it stuck in my head that makeinfo could auto-generate nodes from section headings, but in reviewing the texinfo doc, it looks like I must have confused that with auto-generation of next/prev/up links (or else it was an option that came and went long ago). Stan stan@codesourcery.com