From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9758 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2002 17:26:35 -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 9710 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2002 17:26:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2002 17:26:30 -0000 Received: from zaretsky (diup-221-33.inter.net.il [213.8.221.33]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id BDT06909; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 19:26:13 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:26:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: msnyder@redhat.com Message-Id: <8011-Wed16Jan2002192316+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 CC: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3C45B35B.653A@redhat.com> (message from Michael Snyder on Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:07:39 -0800) Subject: Re: [RFA] New command "info proc" for Linux Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <3C45B35B.653A@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00455.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:07:39 -0800 > From: Michael Snyder > > > > Michael, please don't forget the documentation. Thanks. > > Not straightforward. Couple of issues: > > 1) The old implementation of the "info proc" command was > poorly documented -- many of the documented sub-commands > were never implemented. And the command was only available > on "/proc" systems (real ones, not Linux). > > 2) The stuff I've just added will ONLY work on Linux, > not on other ("real") /proc systems. Does that mean the functionality of this command differs on these two classes of systems? If so, we could: (a) document the functionality on both classes, telling which parts work on what systems; or (b) document the GNU/Linux functionality that you just added, and leave the docs of what the command does on ``real'' /proc systems as it is now. The latter will probably be easier for you (no need to figure out code written by someone else ;-), and it doesn't make the situation worse than it is now. So I won't object if you do only (b). (If you do, it is possible that the Linux-specific docs could go into a new subsection of the "Native" node, where system-specific features are described. Does that address your concerns?