From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29405 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2012 06:20:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 29380 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Apr 2012 06:20:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:19:54 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M3000400UVQIG00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:19:52 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.249.186]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M30004O2UX481C0@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:19:52 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:24:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document board settting In-reply-to: <1335279956-7548-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83haw8fi3r.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1335279956-7548-1-git-send-email-yao@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: 2012-04/txt/msg00843.txt.bz2 > From: Yao Qi > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:05:56 +0800 > > This patch is to describe all the existing board settings we are using > in GDB testsuite. Some of them are obvious, but some are not. I > referred CVS log and mail archives to get the description to each > of them. Thank you! > I comment out gdb,noresults and use_cygmon, which I can't figure out > the purpose of using them. I'll figure them out later. > Please pay attention to my explanation to "gdb,nofileio" and > "gdb,noinferiorio". I am not satisfied with them, but unable > to tell the difference of them. > +@section Board settings > +In @value{GDBN} testsuite, the tests can be configured or customized in its board file ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "in the board file", I think. > +file by means of @dfn{Boarding Settings}. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think you mean "Board Settings" here. > Here are the board settings, I would rephrase Here are the supported board settings: > +@item gdb,cannot_call_functions > +Whether the board supports inferior call, that is, invoking inferior functions Since it says "cannot", I think the meaning of this setting is that inferior calls aren't supported. So the "whether" part is not appropriate. Simply "the board does not support inferior calls" is better. > +in @value{GDBN}. If inferior call is required in test case, this variable If inferior calls are required in a test case, ... > +should be checked. > +@item gdb,can_reverse > +Whether the board supports reverse execution. Again, it's better to say explicitly The board supports reverse execution. > If reverse execution is required > +in test case, this variable should be checked. Please fix this (and other similar places) as I suggested above. Btw, I don't think it's a good idea to repeat the same sentence "If FOO is required in a test case, this variable should be checked." for every setting. I think you should only state this once. > +@item gdb_server_prog > +The location of GDBserver. If GDBserver somewhere other than its default > +location is used in test, specify the location of GDBserver in this variable. By "location" you mean the full file name, right? If so, please say so explicitly. "Location" is ambiguous.