From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1542 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2001 18:55:21 -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 1496 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2001 18:55:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2001 18:55:19 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id B51C85E9D8; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:56:37 -0500 (EST) To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: fnf@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: "maint print type" should print all the flag bits References: From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii's message of Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:17:36 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii writes: > > They're only meant for use by GDB developers. > > How do you expect the GDB developers to discover their existence if > they aren't documented? Even if they do discover their existence, how > would a developer who never used a particular command know what it > does? The built-in doc strings are terse and don't explain much. For > example, suppose i use "maint print type" and see it print > TYPE_FLAG_TARGET_STUB--how do I figure out what that means? (If you > think that GDB's sources explain that clearly, think again ;-) > > I think every command should be documented in the manual. Well, you're right, of course. There's no good reason *not* to document them, other than laziness.