From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22016 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2011 21:18:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 22001 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2011 21:18:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 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-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.62) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:17:58 +0000 Received: from [70.170.59.51] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Rdq1W-0006Pu-Lu for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:17:58 -0500 Message-ID: <4EF39E85.3050207@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:21:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: FYI: minsyms documentation References: <4EF38DAD.3040106@earthlink.net> <8362h8z60x.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <8362h8z60x.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da940bf4bbc447d58db7b834a74f68c8c2f40350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00799.txt.bz2 On 12/22/11 12:49 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Tom Tromey >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:13:19 -0700 >> >> My working assumption is that gdbint.texinfo is barely maintained at >> all. > Only because none of the active developers want to document GDB > internals in a Texinfo manual. Therefore, the sad state of > gdbint.texinfo is a testament of what the majority of GDB maintainers > think it should look like. > Perhaps that means we should rethink whether we need gdbint.texinfo at all. If everybody is able to madly hack away at the code without ever consulting the internals manual, then what purpose is it serving exactly? Are newbies learning by reading the manual, or reading the code? If the latter, then gdbint.texinfo content might get more attention if it was redistributed into 1-2 page blocks at the tops of relevant source files. Stan