From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23008 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2013 18:44:12 -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 22995 invoked by uid 89); 2 Aug 2013 18:44:12 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RDNS_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:44:11 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MQX004002M9BX00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:44:02 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MQX004HO2PE0KA0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:44:02 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:44:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] introduce parallel mode In-reply-to: <87mwp0c52c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <8338qsylu4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1375457773-863-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1375457773-863-5-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <834nb8yntk.fsf@gnu.org> <87mwp0c52c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 12:37:15 -0600 > > >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Tom Tromey > >> Cc: Tom Tromey > >> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:36:13 -0600 > >> > >> * gdbint.texinfo (Testsuite): Use @table, not @itemize. > > Eli> I wonder why. > > The list is really a 2-column table -- each @item introduces a runtest > variable and then defines its purpose. This is what @table is for. > If you look at the current code, it uses @item @code{...} > for each one, which I think is a clue that it is incorrect. I don't think it's incorrect. Using @code doesn't mean it has to be a table. But I won't fight. I just don't like unnecessary changes.