Re: [PATCH 1/1] Documentation for MPX.

Eli Zaretskii
2013-11-21T16:40:49Z

> From: y@ecsmtp.iul.intel.com
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:02:57 +0100
>
> From: Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
>
> Hello Eli and Pedro,
>
> This should complement the MPX registers check-in.
>
> Thanks a lot for your review on the last patch series.
> Here I have tried to incorporate feedback from you both.

Thanks. I don't know why, but I received this about a dozen times;
this is one of them, and I hope they are all identical.

> --- a/gdb/NEWS
> +++ b/gdb/NEWS
> @@ -5558,3 +5558,5 @@ GDB now handles cross debugging. If you are remotely debugging between
> two different machines, type ``./configure host -target=targ''.
> Host is the machine where GDB will run; targ is the machine
> where the program that you are debugging will run.
> +
> + * GDB now supports access to Intel(R) MPX registers on GNU/Linux.

OK.

> +@subsubsection Intel(R) Memory Protection Extensions (MPX).
> +
> +@item bnd0raw..bnd3raw and bnd0...bnd3 registers display.

Please use @dots{} instead of 3 literal period characters.

> +Memory Protection Extension (MPX) adds the bound registers @samp{BND0}

"Memory Protection Extension" should be in @dfn -- you are introducing
new terminology. Also, please put here a @cindex entry for this term.

> +@footnote{Capital letters are used to distinguish between architecture
> +registers and pseudo registers. A set of pseudo registers for the bound
> +registers is created to simplify the display.}

This footnote confused me. Please explain what you wanted to say, and
I will suggest a better wording.

> +Architectuere registers @samp{BND0} through @samp{BND3} are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A typo.

> +@smallexample
> + bnd0raw = {0x32, 0xffffffff8e}
> + bnd0 = {lbound = 0x32, ubound = 0x71} : size 64
> +@end smallexample

This will cause makeinfo to barf. You need to escape each { and }
with a @.

> +This way the architecture value can be accessed via bnd0raw...bnd3raw. Any change

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to use "raw value" instead of
"architecture value".

> +on bnd0..bnd3 or bnd0raw...bnd3raw is reflect on its counterpart.
^^^^^^^^^^
"reflected in". Also, please use @dots{} here as well.

> When displaying
> +bnd0..bnd3 register with Python support also the size of the bounds is displayed.

I'd reword

When the bnd0..bnd3 registers are displayed via Python, the display
includes the size of the bounds.

Btw, what is "the size of the bounds"?