From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-58443-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 23869 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2008 03:09:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 23860 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2008 03:09:05 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout4.012.net.il (HELO mtaout4.012.net.il) (84.95.2.10)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:08:26 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.211.50]) by i_mtaout4.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K6U00I3KWR14HH0@i_mtaout4.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:09:02 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:09:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] [11/18] Cell multi-arch: Target description <compatible> infrastructure
In-reply-to: <200809072115.m87LF11x002403@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <uzlmjcp22.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <200809072115.m87LF11x002403@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
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: 2008-09/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 23:15:01 +0200 (CEST)
> From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
> 
> doc/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	* gdb.texinfo (Target Descriptions): Document <compatible> element.

This part is okay, with the following comments:

> +@var{arch} is an architecture name from the same selection
> +accepted by @code{set architecture} (@pxref{Targets, ,Specifying a
> +Debugging Target}).

I don't understand the purpose of "the same" here.  Same as what?

>                                                   For example, on the
> +Cell Broadband Engine, the main architecture is @code{powerpc:common}
> +or @code{powerpc:common64}, but the system is able to run binaries
> +in the @code{spu} architecture as well.

This begs a continuation:

  The way to describe this capability with @samp{<compatible>} is as
  follows:

  @smallexample
  ...
  @end smallexample

Thanks.