From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3172 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 06:16:20 -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 3165 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 06:16:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 06:16:19 -0000 Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA23497; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:15:08 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:16:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz@is To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain cc: carlton@math.stanford.edu, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] correct info about best C++ compilers/debug formats In-Reply-To: <200302032121.h13LL2R32056@duracef.shout.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > I tested it, too: I built gdb and 'makeinfo' worked fine. As long as we are testing, perhaps someone could find a moment and TeX the manual, to see that the additions typeset well. Also, did you try to follow the external references, like this one: See @ref{Debugging Options,,Options for Debugging Your Program or @sc{gnu} CC, gcc.info, Using @sc{gnu} CC}, for more information. In my experience, references to other manuals tend to confuse people, and thus have a somewhat higher probability of being written incorrectly. I cannot say I see anything wrong with this one, but I don't pretend to remember the order of the arguments by heart ;-)