Re: [PATCH] Add autoload-breakpoints [3/7] ReportAsync-doc

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:23:02 +0800
> From: Hui Zhu <hui_zhu@mentor.com>
> CC: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, <stan_shebs@mentor.com>
> 
> >>>> +The @value{GDBN} remote serial protocol includes @dfn{reportasync},
> >>>> +packets that the stub can report status or do an operation in any time.
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand the "do an operation in any time" part.  What does
> >>> it mean in practice?
> >>
> >> It is means that after gdb connected with the stub, the stub can report
> >> when the inferior is running and GDB is waiting it, or inferior is
> >> stoped and GDB just control it.
> >> It make the stub can report the status for any time.
> >
> > You mean, as in "asynchronously"?
> 
> Yes, that is my mean.

Then please use

 The @value{GDBN} remote serial protocol supports @dfn{reportasync}
 that can be used asynchronously to report status or send commands.

> > I still don't understand why you used the word "simple".  "Simple" as
> > opposed to what other packet handling?
> 
> Maybe "normal" is better. "Normal" as opposed to reportasync packets.

"As usual" or "usual" would be better.  But see below.

> >>>    After the handshake, the stub can send @samp{reportasync} packets to
> >>>    @value{GDBN}, using the same packet format as in simple remote serial
> >>>    protocol.
> >>>
> >>> Is this only for the failed handshake?  If so, perhaps we need to tell
> >>> what happens when the handshake succeeds.
> >>
> >> No, this is for success.
> >
> > The problem here is that you again used "simple protocol", and before
> > that you mentioned "simple packet" when the handshake failed.
> >
> > So this again boils down to the same question: why do you use the word
> > "simple" in this context?
> 
> Yes, it looks really odd even if change it to normal.  That is because 
> after shakes mode, the packet will use the normal format

But you said

  After the handshake, the stub can send @samp{reportasync} packets to
  @value{GDBN}, using the same packet format as in simple remote serial
  protocol.

which actually tells me that the "normal" packets are _not_ in
contrast with reportasync packets, since reportasync packets can be
sent in the "normal format".  What am I missing?