From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-49609-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10245 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2007 18:30:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 10232 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2007 18:30:38 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.24)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:30:33 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-245-204.inter.net.il [84.229.245.204]) 	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id IEQ13845 (AUTH halo1); 	Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:30:17 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:35:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u1wfxntc4.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Markus Deuling <deuling@de.ibm.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com
In-reply-to: <4681382D.1070708@de.ibm.com> (message from Markus Deuling on 	Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:00:45 +0200)
Subject: Re: [rfc] Replace macros by gdbarch functions in gdbint manual
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <4678FEBE.7040209@de.ibm.com> <u7ipyqxxz.fsf@gnu.org> <467B7557.9000708@de.ibm.com> <uodj7p04s.fsf@gnu.org> <4681382D.1070708@de.ibm.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:00:45 +0200
> From: Markus Deuling <deuling@de.ibm.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com
> 
> again thank you very much for your time.

And thank _you_ for working on this in the first place.

> Is this ok to commit?

Yes, but:

> -and to reflect that in the @code{REGISTER_NAME} and related macros.
> +nd to reflect that in the @code{gdbarch_register_name} and related functions.
   ^^
"and"

> +address of the instruction.  gdbarch_addr_bits_remove would then for example

Please gibe gdbarch_addr_bits_remove a @code markup.

> +@findex gdbarch_ps_regnum
> +If defined, this function returns is the number of the processor status
                                     ^^
The "is" part should be removed.

> +the inferior function onto the stack.  In addition to pushing @var{nargs}, the
> +code should push @var{struct_addr} (when @var{struct_return}), and the return
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It looks like something is missing in the parens.  The old text also
had this problem; can someone suggest or guess what was meant here?

Other than that, the patch can go in.