From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25099 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2007 20:33:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 25091 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jun 2007 20:33:23 -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; Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:33:21 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-205-94.inter.net.il [84.229.205.94]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id HYZ58983 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:33:06 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:33:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: "Ulrich Weigand" CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, drow@false.org In-reply-to: <200706021933.l52JXTJX005551@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> (uweigand@de.ibm.com) Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa] [3/4] SPU enhancements: gdbserver support Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200706021933.l52JXTJX005551@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 21:33:29 +0200 (CEST) > From: "Ulrich Weigand" > Cc: eliz@gnu.org, drow@false.org > > Eli, are the doc changes OK? Yes, but see some comments below. > +@item qXfer:spu:read:@var{annex}:@var{offset},@var{length} > +@anchor{qXfer spu read} > +@cindex spufs > +@cindex SPU You already added a "@cindex SPU" entry in your previous patch. This is the second index entry with exactly the same name, which is not a very good idea: a reader looking at the index will not know which one to choose. It is better to use an entry qualified by its context, for example: @cindex SPU, read @code{spufs} files > +Read contents of an @code{spufs} file on the target system. The > +annex specifies which file to read; it must be of the form > +@var{id}/@var{name}, where @var{id} specifies an SPU context ID Since you are talking about a file, you should use the @file markup: +@file{@var{id}/@var{name}}, where @var{id} specifies an SPU context ID > -@item qXfer:@var{object}:write:@var{annex}:@var{offset}:@var{data}@dots{} > +@item qXfer:@var{object}:write:@var{annex}:@var{offset},@var{length}:@var{data}@dots{} Won't this change break backward compatibility? > +Write @var{length} bytes of uninterpreted data into the target's > +special data area identified by the keyword @var{object}, starting What do you mean by ``keyword''? Isn't @var{object} a _name_ of an object or its symbol? > +at @var{offset} bytes into the data. @samp{@var{data}@dots{}} is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why use @samp here? Does it do anything useful? > +the binary-encoded data (@pxref{Binary Data}) to be written. The > +content and encoding of @var{annex} is specific to the object; it can ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Better say "... is specific to @var{object}". > +@table @samp > +@item qXfer:@var{spu}:write:@var{annex}:@var{offset},@var{length}:@var{data}@dots{} > +@anchor{qXfer spu write} > +@cindex spufs > +@cindex SPU See above about "@cindex SPU". > +be of the form @var{id}/@var{name}, where @var{id} specifies an SPU context ID ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Likewise, please use @file.