From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-78550-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2093 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2011 18:41:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 2084 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2011 18:41:48 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:41:43 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LH100C007PK9600@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:41:29 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.14.198]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LH100CUP7X20P50@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:41:28 +0200 (IST)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:48:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA] info break/watch/trace use get_number_or_range, take two
In-reply-to: <4D640113.2000800@vmware.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
Cc: pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83wrkrsyhy.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4D62E5E0.9080105@vmware.com> <201102220916.51541.pedro@codesourcery.com> <E1Prpp9-0003Xl-Nv@fencepost.gnu.org> <4D640113.2000800@vmware.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: 2011-02/txt/msg00617.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:31:47 -0800
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
> CC: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>, 
>  "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> >> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:16:51 +0000
> >> Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
> >>
> >>>    add_info ("breakpoints", breakpoints_info, _("\
> >>> -Status of user-settable breakpoints, or breakpoint number NUMBER.\n\
> >>> +Status of user-settable breakpoints listed, or all breakpoints if no argument.\n\
> >> "listed" doesn't sound obviously referring to the spec
> >> you pass as argument to the command.  "listed where?  the
> >> command itself is printing a list." was my thought.  Is
> >> there any other way to spell that?
> > 
> > How about just losing the "listed" part?  What important information
> > does it convey in this context?
> 
> What wording do you suggest?

How about

 Status of specified breakpoints (all user-settable breakpoints if no argument).

?