From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19324 invoked by alias); 6 May 2011 10:28:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 19316 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2011 10:28:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 May 2011 10:28:07 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LKR00M00ROWIY00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 06 May 2011 13:27:47 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.234.175]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LKR00M69RQA6L80@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 06 May 2011 13:27:47 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 10:28:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [needs doc review] Re: [RFA 3/3] Implement support for PowerPC BookE masked watchpoints In-reply-to: <1304632618.19357.246.camel@hactar> To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <834o58m8d7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <201104291745.p3THjh0k030472@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <1304398554.2245.81.camel@hactar> <1304632618.19357.246.camel@hactar> 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 > From: Thiago Jung Bauermann > Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches ml > Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 18:56:58 -0300 > > > > A @dfn{masked watchpoint} specifies a mask in addition to an address > > > to watch. The @code{mask} argument implies the @code{-location} > > > argument, which means that the expression will be resolved to a memory > > > address at watchpoint creation time (@pxref{Set Watchpoints}.) > > > > What do you mean by "implies"? Do you mean that -location must be > > specified if "mask" is specified? If so, "implies" is not a good > > word. > > I mean that if you specify mask, then it's as if you specified -location > as well. Do you think it's not clear enough? > > > I also don't really understand the part about "resolving to a memory > > address at watchpoint creation time". What were you trying to say? > > I tried to explain what -location does in a very short sentence. :-) > > In this version I moved the explanation about masked watchpoints from > the PowerPC section to the Set Watchpoints section. I think it makes > more sense there. This also made unnecessary any separate explanation > about -location since it comes right after the masked watchpoint > explanation. > > What do you think of this version? It's okay, but I think the last sentence would be clearer with this minor change: The @code{mask} argument implies @code{-location}. If you move the paragraph you added below the one that describes the `-location' switch, this will be perfect, since `-location' will have been explained immediately before the reference to it in your new text about masked watchpoints. Okay with that change. Thanks.