Re: [PATCH 7/7] Add documentation for new instruction record Python bindings.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Tim Wiederhake <tim.wiederhake@intel.com>
> Cc: palves@redhat.com, markus.t.metzger@intel.com
> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:28:31 +0200
> 
> 2016-10-26  Tim Wiederhake  <tim.wiederhake@intel.com>
> 
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	* NEWS: Add record Python bindings entry.
> 
> gdb/doc/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	* python.texi: Add record Python bindings entry.

Thanks, I have a few comments on this part of the patch.

> +@node Recordings In Python
> +@subsubsection Recordings In Python
> +@cindex recordings in python
> +
> +The following recordings-related functions are available in the
> +@code{gdb} module:

Please add here a sentence that references the place in the manual
where recording and replaying facilities are described.

> +@defun gdb.start_recording ([method])

Please use "@r{[}method@r{]}" instead of "[method]", so that the
brackets are typeset in the roman typeface.

> +Starts a recording using the given @var{method}.  If no @var{method} is

Elsewhere in the manual we say "Start", not "Starts".  Please use that
form for consistency (here and elsewhere in your documentation patch).

> +@itemize @bullet
> +@item
> +@code{"full"}

I suggest to lose the quotes, they don't look good inside @code, and
also might mislead the reader to think that these are strings, which I
don't think is true.  You could use @samp instead of @code if you want
to have quotes in the printed/PDF manual (in the Info output this will
be quoted with @code as well).

> +@defvar BtraceInstruction.number
> +An integer identifying this instruction.  @var{number} corresponds to
> +the numbers seen in @code{record instruction-history}.

A cross-reference to the place which describes that command would be
good here.

This part is okay with the above issues fixed.