Re: [RFA] Displaced stepping just enable in non-stop mode

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:07:42 +0100
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
>  "Joel Brobecker" <brobecker@adacore.com>,
>  "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@vmware.com>
> 
> Eli, can I ask you to go over the help strings and the documentation in
> the patch below?  Do they look OK-ish?

They are OK, but:

  . The doc strings use too long lines, which will look ugly on your
    garden-variety 80-column terminal.

  . In the gdb.texinfo, don't put "set" and "show" commands in the
    same @item/@itemx, because the text below them says "Control
    whether...", which is inappropriate for the "show" command.

  . "Displaced stepping" is really a bad name for this feature.  Is it
    widely accepted or did we invent it?

  . This text:

     +@cindex non-stop mode, and @samp{set can-use-displaced-stepping}
     +@item set can-use-displaced-stepping auto
     +This is the default mode.  @value{GDBN} will use displaced stepping
     +only if non-stop mode is active (@pxref{Non-Stop Mode}) and the target
     +architecture supports it.

    needs to be rephrased in the last sentence, to disambiguate the
    "supports it" part: a reader could be confused to think that "it"
    refers to the non-stop mode, not to displaced stepping.

  . Why isn't it better to use displaced stepping, if supported, even
    if non-stop mode is not in effect?  I think the linkage between
    the two is confusing and unnecessary.

  . I agree with Daniel's criticism of the can-use-displaced-stepping
    option's name.  An obvious first step towards making it shorter
    would be to remove the "can-" prefix.

Thanks.