From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 128734 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2019 16:40:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 128673 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jun 2019 16:40:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,CLAIM_SUBJECT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=english, English, sk:simark, simark@simark.ca X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 16:40:41 +0000 Received: from [172.16.0.120] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99F4A1E65F; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: fix false claim about second argument to gdb To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: mhw@netris.org, bug-gdb@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <87imt321yr.fsf@netris.org> <83zhmeswfl.fsf@gnu.org> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 16:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83zhmeswfl.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2 On 2019-06-18 12:14 p.m., Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Simon Marchi >> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:51:03 -0400 >> >> -You can, instead, specify a process ID as a second argument, if you want >> -to debug a running process: >> +You can, instead, specify a process ID as a second argument or using option >> +@code{-p}, if you want to debug a running process: > > "specify ... or using ..." is incorrect English. I guess you meant > "use"? Oh, that's right. Changed it to "use". > No other comments, thanks. (I didn't look at the code to see if the > description is factually correct.) I didn't check the code either, but tried various combinations and observed this behavior. I pushed the patch with the error above fixed, thanks. Simon