From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-84169-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14499 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2011 18:32:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 14487 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2011 18:32:40 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:32:23 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LSN00D00P02K600@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:31:35 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.91.138]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LSN00CI7Q4KZGC0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:31:33 +0200 (IST)
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:32:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [python] [doc] PR 12930/12802 (clarify Breakpoint::stop doco)
In-reply-to: <m3pqia8jys.fsf@redhat.com>
To: pmuldoon@redhat.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83obxugeev.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <m3pqia8jys.fsf@redhat.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/msg00172.txt.bz2

> From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
> CC: eli@gnu.org, pedro@codesourcery.com
> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:58:51 +0100
> 
> This patch address the PRs 12930, and 12802 which both arise from
> confusion regarding the scope of actions in the Breakpoint::stop
> callback.  I have added some documentation to clarify.

Thanks.

> +When @value{GDBN} executes each @code{stop} method, the inferior has
> +been stopped, but the internal state accounting for that inferior is
> +undetermined.  As the return value from each @code{stop} method has the
> +potential to instruct @value{GDBN} to restart the inferior, or keep it
> +in a stopped state, this indeterminate state will remain until the
> +execution scope of each @code{stop} method has been completed.

Do we really need this part?  I feel it doesn't explain anything that
is instrumental for the rest of this paragraph, and it sounds
mysterious enough to puzzle and confuse.  How about dropping it and
just leaving the rest (minus the "Therefore" part)?

>                                                                Therefore
> +you should not alter the execution state of the inferior (IE step, next,
                                                             ^^
"i.e.@:", in lower case and with periods.

> +etc), alter the current frame context (IE change the current active

"etc.", with a period.

Okay with those changes.