Re: [RFC] Target described register suppport (finally)

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:04:44 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
> 	Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
> 
> Tested on arm-none-linux-gnueabi, with and without the iwmmxt patch,
> and on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.  Any thoughts on this patch, or the
> included documentation?  Does it look OK?

I approve the documentation patches, with these few minor comments:

>  @example

We use @smallexample throughout.

> +if any known feature is missing required registers, or if any required
> +feature is missing, @value{GDBN}, it will reject the target
> +description.

Something's wrong with this text.

> +standard features - @value{GDBN} will display them just as if

Please use --- for em-dash.

Also, please add index entries for the issues and features you
describe.  Ideally, each term (like "predefined target types") and
each XML tag (like "<feature>" and "<architecture>") should be
indexed.  Think of someone who wants to consult the manual just to be
reminded of the exact syntax of some portion of the XML documents you
describe, and then index any word or phrase that someone would think
of.

> +How to use target descriptions and how to write them are covered in
> +the @value{GDBN} user's manual.

An explicit cross-reference would be useful here.

>                                                    Also
> +@xref{Adding Target Described Register Support}.

This will look ugly, because @xref generates a capitalized "See" and
"Note".  Use "Also see @ref..." instead.

> +@node Adding Target Described Register Support
> +@section Adding Target Described Register Support

Why there are no @cindex entries here?

> +Target descriptions can describe additional registers specific to an

"descriptions can describe"?