From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13189 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2007 19:18:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 13178 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Feb 2007 19:18:25 -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; Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:18:14 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-250-236.inter.net.il [80.230.250.236]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id HAQ27967 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 2 Feb 2007 21:17:51 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:18:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com In-reply-to: <20070129220444.GC17422@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:04:44 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFC] Target described register suppport (finally) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20070129220444.GC17422@nevyn.them.org> 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:04:44 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , > Richard Earnshaw > > 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 "" and "") 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"?