Re: [RFC] Refactor doc on stop notification.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:46:01 +0800
> From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
> CC: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> Here is a real rsp traffic on notification Stop.
> 
> <- %Stop:T0505:98e7ffbf;04:4ce6ffbf;08:b1b6e54c;thread:p7526.7526;core:0;
> ....
> -> vStopped
> <- T0505:68f37db7;04:40f37db7;08:63850408;thread:p7526.7528;core:0;
> -> vStopped
> <-T0505:68e3fdb6;04:40e3fdb6;08:63850408;thread:p7526.7529;core:0;
> -> vStopped
> <- OK

Thanks, this explains quite a bit.

> How about the new version?

It's OK, after you take care of a few remaining problems:

> +See @xref{Notification Packets}.

Just "@xref", without the "See" part.  @xref already generates a "See".

> +Each notification is composed by three parts:
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"comprised of three parts"

> +Otherwise, @value{GDBN} must be prepared to receive a

I would delete the "Otherwise" part.  I don't think it adds anything
to the text.

> +If the stub receives a @var{ack} packet and there are no
> +additional stop events to report, the stub shall return an @samp{OK}
> +response.  At this point, @value{GDBN} has finished processing a
> +notification and the stub has completed sending any queued events.
> +@value{GDBN} ignores additional notifications received before this
> +point.       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Before" or "after"?  If "before" is correct, then I don't think I
understand what this paragraph wants to tell.

> +The process of asynchronous notification can be illustrated by the
> +following example:
> +@smallexample
> +<- @code{%name:event}
> +@code{...}
> +-> @code{ack}
> +<- @code{event}
> +-> @code{ack}
> +<- @code{event}
> +-> @code{ack}
> +<- @code{OK}
> +@end smallexample

I would suggest to consider putting here a real example, like the one
you used to explain the issue to me.

OK with those changes.

Thanks.