From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7872 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2001 08:29:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7847 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2001 08:29:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2001 08:29:43 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA10175; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:28:51 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:29:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Daniel Jacobowitz cc: Andrew Cagney , msnyder@redhat.com, jimb@cygnus.com, fnf@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: "maint print type" should print all the flag bits In-Reply-To: <20011211221319.B5098@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00321.txt.bz2 On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I don't consider that fit for the User's manual. I don't see why we should conceal the maint commands from users: what damage can that possibly cause? We also shouldn't second-guess what they need: it's perfectly possible that some maint command could be useful to some user, somewhere. If those commands aren't in the user manual, users will never find them. OTOH, having these commands in the user's manual doesn't present any disadvantage to the GDB developers.