Re: remote protocol support for TARGET_OBJECT_AUXV

Eli Zaretskii
2004-02-12T06:26:59Z

> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:11:58 -0800
> From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
>
> Here is proposed wording for a protocol based on your comments.
> I have the implementation ready to go as well.

If the implementation is approved, here are my comments about the
documentation patch:

> +@item @code{E}@var{NN}
> +The request is bad, the offset is invalid,
> +or there was an error encountered reading the data.

I suggest using @var{nn} (lower-case) instead of @var{NN}, since that
should look better in the printed manual. Also, please explain in
the text what does @var{nn} stand for; I assume it's a number that
tells what kind of error happened, but I think the manual shouldn't
leave that to reader's guesses.

> +@table @samp

I don't think @samp is appropriate here: it puts every item in
quotes, which is a bit ugly. Your @item's already have the necessary
markup (@code etc.), so I'd suggest to use "@table @asis" instead.

> +@item @var{NN}
> +@var{NN} (hex encoded) is the number of bytes written.

For consistency, I'd suggest to use @var{XX} here, as you did in a
previous table.

> +@item @code{E}@var{NN}
> +The request is bad, the offset is invalid,
> +or there was an error encountered writing the data.

See the comment above about @var{NN}.

> +@item @code{}
> +An empty reply indicates the @var{object} or @var{annex} string was not
> +recognized by the stub, or that the object does not support writing.

The empty item is confusing and will look awkward in print, I think.
How about this instead:

@item @code{""} (empty)

?

Thanks.