From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31202 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2009 20:15:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 31193 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Dec 2009 20:15:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:14:56 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KUT00K00C2RGF00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:14:54 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.70.160.137]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KUT00HTZC8TWPA0@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:14:54 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:15:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: GDB MI Reverse Commands added [2 of 3] In-reply-to: <200912162345.37121.vladimir@codesourcery.com> To: Vladimir Prus Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, jakob@virtutech.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <837hsl73up.fsf@gnu.org> References: <00cf01ca265a$d4110dc0$7c332940$@com> <4B292EC9.1010303@vmware.com> <83d42e7klb.fsf@gnu.org> <200912162345.37121.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 > From: Vladimir Prus > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:45:37 +0300 > Cc: Michael Snyder , > jakob@virtutech.com, > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > I am mildly concerned that the important high-level functionality is > only documented as option to specific commands, and as this functionality > is exercised and documentation is improved, we'll end up with information > scattered over N commands. Ah, that's a valid concern. How about if we do both: document the "--reverse" option with each command _and_ add a section with an overview of this feature? > But let's wait and see -- right now, there's not so much information > there. Agreed. So the patch is clear to go in, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks.