From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11616 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2004 06:59:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11599 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2004 06:59:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 2004 06:59:26 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.156.11]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BOS85753; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:59:13 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:59:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <6654-Fri16Apr2004095441+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <407E9FEE.1040906@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:45:02 -0400) Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Generate observer.[hc] Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4075BF8E.9080706@gnu.org> <1659-Thu15Apr2004142420+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <407E9FEE.1040906@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:45:02 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > > > let me play the Devil's > > advocate and ask what significant wins we gain from generating the > > source files from the Texinfo file, that justify maintaining the > > scripts which are required to support this machinery? > > We first establish a one-stop shop for adding observers, and second > eliminate the drudgery of churning out the C code needed to implement > each observer. That much is understood, but I still have a difficulty to see how inventing an elaborate machinery for churning C code out of Texinfo (which is hardly a trivial Sed'ery) is justified by the benefits you mentioned. I thought perhaps there were other, subtler, benefits which I didn't see. Are there? > (At a guess, we're going to end up with something between 10 and 20 > observers). So what, we will have all of them in the docs?