From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30656 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2011 10:22:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 30646 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2011 10:22:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:22:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p97AMC8K020498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:22:12 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p97AMA0o016385; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:22:11 -0400 From: Phil Muldoon To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [python] [doc] PR 12930/12802 (clarify Breakpoint::stop doco) References: <83obxugeev.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83obxugeev.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:31:36 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Phil Muldoon >> CC: eli@gnu.org, pedro@codesourcery.com >> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 11:58:51 +0100 >> >> This patch address the PRs 12930, and 12802 which both arise from >> confusion regarding the scope of actions in the Breakpoint::stop >> callback. I have added some documentation to clarify. > > Thanks. > >> +When @value{GDBN} executes each @code{stop} method, the inferior has >> +been stopped, but the internal state accounting for that inferior is >> +undetermined. As the return value from each @code{stop} method has the >> +potential to instruct @value{GDBN} to restart the inferior, or keep it >> +in a stopped state, this indeterminate state will remain until the >> +execution scope of each @code{stop} method has been completed. > > Do we really need this part? I feel it doesn't explain anything that > is instrumental for the rest of this paragraph, and it sounds > mysterious enough to puzzle and confuse. How about dropping it and > just leaving the rest (minus the "Therefore" part)? Yeah that is fine, I was just trying to justify why one should not tinker with these areas during that time. But that's something we should have not have in the manual, in retrospect. Thanks for the review, I will make the changes and check it in. Cheers Phil