From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-44556-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11332 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2006 18:23:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 11323 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2006 18:23:05 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:23:04 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-34-238.inter.net.il [80.230.34.238]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id DSA78771 (AUTH halo1); 	Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:21:38 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:23:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uk67k532m.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20060612195313.GA11276@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:53:13 -0400)
Subject: Re: RFC: Remote "qSupported" features probe
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References:  <20060612195313.GA11276@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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: 2006-06/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:53:13 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> Eli, there's a big chunk of texinfo in here.  It's been basically rewritten
> since the last time I posted a texinfo version of the documentation; could
> you take a look at it, please?

Taking a look...

> +@table @samp
> +@item @var{stubfeature} @r{[};@var{stubfeature}@r{]}@dots{}
> +The stub supports or does not support each returned @var{stubfeature},
> +depending on the form of each @var{stubfeature} (see below for the
> +possible forms).
> +@item
> +An empty reply indicates that @samp{qSupported} is not recognized,
> +or that no features needed to be reported to @value{GDBN}.

Did you look at how this empty @item is typeset in the printed version
of the manual?  I suspect it won't do what you want.  Perhaps saying
"(@emph{empty})" explicitly will look better.

Other than that, I'm happy with the doco patch.  Thanks!