From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Cagney Cc: kevinb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [obish?sym;rfa:doc] Wire up vsyscall Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 05:50:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <409A8C2A.2010605@gnu.org> <40A91C36.7000900@gnu.org> <20040517131914.332fa347@saguaro> <1438-Tue18May2004085728+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <40AA6D88.50003@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00559.html > Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:09:44 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > I think this is better ... > > @deftypefun void inferior_created (struct target_ops *@var{objfile}, int > @var{from_tty}) > @value{GDBN} has just connected to an inferior. For @samp{run}, this > observer is called while the inferior is still stopped at the > entry-point instruction. For @samp{attach} and @samp{core}, this > observer is called immediately after connecting to the inferior, and > before any information on the inferior has been printed). > @end deftypefun Yes, much better. Of course, following RMS's advice to avoid passive, "@value{GDBN} calls this observer..." instead of "this observer is called..." would be even better ;-) > ... but the ``connecting to the inferior'' near the end is struggling a bit. The only thing that bothers me is whether ``connecting'' is something that the reader will instantly understand. Other than that, I don't see any problems here.