From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 751 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2011 06:59:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 737 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2011 06:59:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 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; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 06:58:52 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LH700200PTONH00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:58:49 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.53.157]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LH7001F4Q1ZMBR0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:58:49 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:35:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [rfa] Use get_number_or_range for kill inferior etc. In-reply-to: <4D683845.4010302@vmware.com> To: Michael Snyder Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83mxljp9hu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4D680E45.50607@vmware.com> <201102252051.36471.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4D6828B9.2000000@vmware.com> <83pqqfpwqw.fsf@gnu.org> <4D683845.4010302@vmware.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: 2011-02/txt/msg00787.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:16:21 -0800 > From: Michael Snyder > CC: "pedro@codesourcery.com" , > "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:10:01 -0800 > >> From: Michael Snyder > >> CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > >> > >> 2011-02-25 Michael Snyder > >> > >> * gdb.texinfo (Inferiors and Programs): Update commands to show > >> that they can accept multiple arguments. > > > > This part is OK, but I still think we should explain the syntax of > > these "lists" in some place, and point to there in each of these > > commands. > > I think we all agree on that. Then why doesn't this patch do something about that? Maybe I'm missing some related plan, if so apologies.