From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5061 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2004 13:17:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5012 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2004 13:17:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 13:17:17 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-196-71.inter.net.il [80.230.196.71]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CTW23230 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:16:17 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:38:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: "Dave Korn" Message-ID: <01c4ad38$Blat.v2.2.2$abd73c80@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (dk@artimi.com) Subject: Re: Discussion: Formalizing the deprecation process in GDB Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00255.txt.bz2 > From: "Dave Korn" > Cc: , > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 13:40:31 +0100 > > Eli, I was particularly thinking of you when I wrote > > " It's just occurred to me that this could be read as a specific complaint > or accusation against gdb's documentation, rather than a comment on the > generally sorry state of documentation as a whole in the software industry. > No such inference was implied nor intended; sorry if anyone thought I was > criticising gdb with that statement! " I, for one, don't see your criticism as a Bad Thing; on the contrary. > However, since we mention it, sections 3.3-3.6, 4.3-4.4, 9.7-9.9, > 10.3-10.6, 11.2-11.5, 12.3-12.4 and 12.7 of gdbint are missing. Just so it is easier for me to find those places, could you please tell the names of these sections, instead of just numbers? > Also, 9.5 and 9.6 are both prefixed with disclaimers; 9.5 says "This > section is pretty much obsolete. The functionality described here has > largely been replaced by pseudo-registers and the mechanisms described [... > in 9.6 ...] " and refers the reader to 9.6, which says "The way GDB > manipulates registers is undergoing significant change. Many of the macros > and functions refered to in this section are likely to be subject to further > revision.". The combined effect of these two sections is to leave the > reader (well, this one, at any rate) with no idea how you're supposed to > manipulate registers (or indeed, what a pseudo-register even is, since the > term is not used nor defined anywhere else in the documentation). And I > didn't find that browsing the comments in regcache.h makes up for that. I agree that such ``documentation'' is very unhelpful. Would someone please volunteer to write something more useful?