From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22486 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2015 20:35:03 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 22464 invoked by uid 89); 23 Mar 2015 20:35:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:35:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2NKYxUC012919 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:34:59 -0400 Received: from x220.homelab.tallawa.org ([10.3.112.10]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2NKYn2s017143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:34:56 -0400 Message-ID: <551078E6.6000304@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:35:00 -0000 From: Cleber Rosa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, areis@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] GDBServer: introduce --server-stderr command line option References: <1426905265-8495-1-git-send-email-crosa@redhat.com> <1426905265-8495-4-git-send-email-crosa@redhat.com> <83384yvjr0.fsf@gnu.org> <55105FFD.60204@redhat.com> <83iodrr0j6.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83iodrr0j6.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00755.txt.bz2 On 03/23/2015 04:12 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:48:29 -0300 >> From: Cleber Rosa >> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, areis@redhat.com >> >>>> +@item --server-stderr >>>> +Instruct @code{gdbserver} to redirect its own @code{stderr} to another >>>> +file. >>> The option requires an argument, so the argument should be mentioned >>> with the option and referenced in the text that describes it. >> Sure, I also feel an example could help. How do you feel about this: >> >> @cindex @option{--server-output}, @code{gdbserver} option >> The @option{--server-output=path} option tells @code{gdbserver} to send > @option{--server-output=@var{path}} (and once again, please use > "file" or "filename", not "path"). Sorry, I missed that in the first reply but it's covered in the updated patches (and inline for information purposes): @cindex @option{--server-output}, @code{gdbserver} option The @option{--server-output=@var{file}} option tells @code{gdbserver} to send all its output to a file given by @var{file}. This can be useful, for instance, if you need to collect the server output and/or the inferior output, but want to keep them separate: @smallexample $ gdbserver --server-output=log :2222 bin >bin.out 2>bin.err @end smallexample > > Also, what happened to the @item? @item --server-output=file Instruct @code{gdbserver} to redirect its own output to @var{file}. Which renders as: --server-output=file Instruct "gdbserver" to redirect its own output to file. Too simplistic or is that OK? > >> all its output to a file given by @var{path}. This can be useful, for > ^^ > Two spaces between sentences. > >> @smallexample >> $ gdbserver --server-output=server.log :2222 testprog >test.out 2>test.err >> @end smallexample > This line is too long; either try to make it shorter, e.g., by using > shorter file/program names, or break it into 2 lines. OK, how about (repeated from earlier): @smallexample $ gdbserver --server-output=log :2222 bin >bin.out 2>bin.err @end smallexample > > Otherwise, this is fine, thanks. >>> AFAIK, GNU Coding Standards frown on using "path" for anything that is >>> not PATH-style list of directories. So please use "file" or "file >>> name" here. >> I could not find a mention on the GNU Coding Standards manual itself, > It's in the node "GNU Manuals": > > Please do not use the term "pathname" that is used in Unix > documentation; use "file name" (two words) instead. We use the term > "path" only for search paths, which are lists of directory names. Oh, thanks for the pointer and for having the manual on (brain) cache and catching that!