RFA: update `print' docs

RFA: update `print' docs

[Tom Tromey]

Ben Woodard, a user here at Red Hat, noticed that pretty-printing was
not very explicitly described in the `Examining Data' part of the
manual.

This patch attempts to fix this a little, and also updates some text
which was misleading -- it was based on an earlier version of the
pretty-printing patch.

Ok?

Tom

2010-03-05  Tom Tromey  <tromey@redhat.com>

	* gdb.texinfo (Data): Link to pretty-printing.
	(Output Formats): Likewise.  Correct text.

Index: gdb.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.676
diff -u -r1.676 gdb.texinfo
--- gdb.texinfo	1 Mar 2010 17:19:22 -0000	1.676
+++ gdb.texinfo	5 Mar 2010 18:22:36 -0000
@@ -6661,7 +6661,8 @@
 command (abbreviated @code{p}), or its synonym @code{inspect}.  It
 evaluates and prints the value of an expression of the language your
 program is written in (@pxref{Languages, ,Using @value{GDBN} with
-Different Languages}).
+Different Languages}).  It may also print the expression using a
+Python-based pretty-printer (@pxref{Pretty Printing}).
 
 @table @code
 @item print @var{expr}
@@ -7159,8 +7160,10 @@
 @item r
 @cindex raw printing
 Print using the @samp{raw} formatting.  By default, @value{GDBN} will
-use a type-specific pretty-printer.  The @samp{r} format bypasses any
-pretty-printer which might exist for the value's type.
+use a Python-based pretty-printer, if one is available (@pxref{Pretty
+Printing}).  This typically results in a higher-level display of the
+value's contents.  The @samp{r} format bypasses any Python
+pretty-printer which might exist.
 @end table
 
 For example, to print the program counter in hex (@pxref{Registers}), type

Re: RFA: update `print' docs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:30:04 -0700
> 
> Ben Woodard, a user here at Red Hat, noticed that pretty-printing was
> not very explicitly described in the `Examining Data' part of the
> manual.
> 
> This patch attempts to fix this a little, and also updates some text
> which was misleading -- it was based on an earlier version of the
> pretty-printing patch.
> 
> Ok?

Yes, OK.  Thanks.