From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 115752 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2019 19:43:37 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 115742 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jun 2019 19:43:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:697 X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (209.51.188.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:43:35 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:34117) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hgwmT-0007w4-If; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:43:33 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4111 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hgwmR-0001Yf-7g; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:43:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 19:43:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83lfxlh4x4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <878stly2dy.fsf@tromey.com> (message from Tom Tromey on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:46:01 -0600) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add $_ada_exception convenience variable References: <20190627145235.21222-1-tromey@adacore.com> <20190627145235.21222-5-tromey@adacore.com> <83r27fhqxo.fsf@gnu.org> <878stly2dy.fsf@tromey.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00639.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 12:46:01 -0600 > > Eli> Here I wonder why we need to have the exact same text 3 times within > Eli> less than 25 lines. Can't we say this only once? > > The reason I repeated it is that this section is pretty big -- all the > catchpoints are documented in a single large table. > > I could split this up somehow. Maybe sub-nodes? > > Or, I could mention it in the first Ada catchpoint documentation and > then have the other ones refer back to that. > > What would you prefer? The latter, I think. Thanks.