From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26650 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2007 18:40:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 26641 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2007 18:40:18 -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; Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:40:15 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-226-24.inter.net.il [84.229.226.24]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id IDW62910 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:39:41 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:40:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Nick Roberts CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <18046.4095.409804.261082@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> (message from Nick Roberts on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:32:31 +1200) Subject: Re: [PATCH: doco] gdbint.texinfo Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <18046.4095.409804.261082@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 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/msg00437.txt.bz2 > From: Nick Roberts > Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:32:31 +1200 > > > I still get confused by target and architecture (sometimes, they seem to be > used interchangeably) but how about adding a menu and creating nodes as below? It's okay, but please make the long node names shorter. Long node names look badly in an Info reader > `gdb/ARCH-tdep.c' > `gdb/ARCH-tdep.h' > This often exists to describe the basic layout of the target > machine's processor chip (registers, stack, etc.). If used, it is > included by `TTT-tdep.h'. It can be shared among many targets > that use the same processor. > > `gdb/config/ARCH/tm-ARCH.h' > This often exists to describe the basic layout of the target > machine's processor chip (registers, stack, etc.). If used, it is > included by `tm-TTT.h'. It can be shared among many targets that > use the same processor. > > have the same description. I presume the first is wrong. Yes, it's wrong. Thanks for catching that.