From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-40048-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 9379 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2005 10:20:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 9371 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2005 10:20:07 -0000
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:20:07 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-159-161.inter.net.il [80.230.159.161])
	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR)
	with ESMTP id BOL97132 (AUTH halo1);
	Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:20:00 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:20:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u64wb29pg.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <17075.57612.684597.392526@farnswood.snap.net.nz> (message from
	Nick Roberts on Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:53:32 +1200)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] -stack-info-frames
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <17075.21529.964955.923197@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
	<20050617230130.GB21178@nevyn.them.org>
	<20050617231425.GA22254@nevyn.them.org>
	<17075.30993.384316.356236@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
	<20050618015756.GA30430@nevyn.them.org>
	<uhdfw10go.fsf@gnu.org>
	<17075.57612.684597.392526@farnswood.snap.net.nz>
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2

> From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:53:32 +1200
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
>  > > Not sure what we could add to the docs.  This is what's there:
>  > >   If invoked without arguments, this command prints a backtrace for the
>  > > whole stack.  If given two integer arguments, it shows the frames whose
>  > > levels are between the two arguments (inclusive).  If the two arguments
>  > > are equal, it shows the single frame at the corresponding level.
>  > 
>  > Is the actual/new behavior any different, and if so, how?
> 
> The only behaviour that I've changed is that -stack-selected-frame must
> have an argument.  This now accurately reflects existing documentation.

But the above snippet is taken from the documentation of
"-stack-list-frames", not from "-stack-selected-frame".  How is that
relevant?