From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-84657-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 22013 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2011 16:47:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 22004 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Oct 2011 16:47:34 -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; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:47:13 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LTM00500RADRH00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:47:09 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.212.197]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LTM005PMRYHF230@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:47:06 +0200 (IST)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:53:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Status of 'blacklist' patch?
In-reply-to: <CAFWcpZ6JtXqu3W9A05CO5ZuAxYGev8W_-kUsGOZWDB5Y+2JuOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Lebar <justin.lebar@gmail.com>
Cc: dje@google.com, stanshebs@earthlink.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83ipndc92n.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <CAD_=9DR9YN19cRJ4W7+oA+WQ92HCh=V08Ms8QL67V5cg4R12Kw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFWcpZ7z8NjJ1T-cL2=JQO=5a+8e9t4r=_7aA1Nnds-gQZc74A@mail.gmail.com> <4E8DCE67.80507@earthlink.net> <CAFWcpZ56NugcRofZqrkK95Tjh5kcP+nuBpchZ1HWJ1HymaTgdg@mail.gmail.com> <4E92E639.7000402@earthlink.net> <CAFWcpZ6URBn2GNbLW0uUoZE6Pv+U8WoimmnmjHYtN8W_dt7rgA@mail.gmail.com> <CADPb22RNLLeWaoU9sbOeUmdHS1zugnbiVu+pdTDdgwc+Wt0xgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFWcpZ7UuD23wChztKuxPuYCM8FdUfEOqzcHT85YHusoCOvRZw@mail.gmail.com> <83ipnjs9i1.fsf@gnu.org> <CAFWcpZ6JtXqu3W9A05CO5ZuAxYGev8W_-kUsGOZWDB5Y+2JuOA@mail.gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00660.txt.bz2

> From: Justin Lebar <justin.lebar@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:08:09 -0400
> Cc: dje@google.com, stanshebs@earthlink.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > What happens if I have a function called "file" in the same program?
> > IOW, to what degree is "file" a reserved keyword here?
> 
> Even if you have a function named "file", |skip file| will skip the
> current file.  But |skip function file| would skip the function called
> "file".

I suggest to say this explicitly as a note.  E.g., like this:

 (If you have a function called @code{file} that you want to skip, use
 @kbd{skip function file} to specify it.)

> >> +@item Type
> >> +@samp{function} or @samp{file}
> >
> > The text below the @item line should be at least one complete
> > sentence.
> 
> FWIW, I think
> 
>    @samp{function} or @samp{file}
> 
> beats
> 
>     This field contains either @samp{function} or @samp{file},
> indicating whether
> the skip is on one function or all the functions in a file.

I didn't suggest the latter; you did ;-)

I will settle for

  The type of this skip, either @samp{function} or @samp{file}.

> > @item Identifier
> > A number identifying this skip.
> 
> This is not a complete sentence.  Should it be changed as well?

No need, it is complete enough for me.

Thanks.