Re: [PATCH 12/12] NEWS and Doc on --available-children-only

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:59:20 +0800
> From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
> CC: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> When GDB reads from trace frames, if the variables are collected and
> saved in trace frames, GDB is able to show the valid values of these
> variables.  We call "values of these variables are available".  OTOH,
> if the variables are not collected, "their values are unavailable".
> 
> For example, in a traceframe, field a is collected but field b is not.
> As a result, value of field a is available, and value of field b is
> unavailable.
> 
>   struct foo
>   {
>     int a; /* Collected */
>     int b; /* Uncollected */
>   };
> 
> Going to MI/varobj world,  everything is structured as a tree, and each
> tree node is about certain value.  foo.a and foo.b are the children of
> foo in MI/varobj, so foo.a is an available child of foo, but foo.b
> isn't.
> 
> The concept of available and unavailable can be illustrated by GDB
> accessing trace frames, but the concept itself is quite independent and
> can be applied to other situations.

OK, thanks.  I think I understand.  I suggest, instead of this:

  If the @samp{--available-children-only} option is specified, then only
  value available or collected children of the varobj are considered.

to say this:

  If the @samp{--available-children-only} option is specified, then
  @value(GDBN) considers only those children of the varobj whose
  values were collected.

And in general, use "collected values" and "children whose values were
collected" or "children with collected values" in other places.

Does this correctly capture your intent?