Re: remote protocol support for TARGET_OBJECT_AUXV

[Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>]

> 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.

I copied this part of the documentation, and protocol behavior, from the
other existing protocol requests.  As far as I can tell, they are all
underspecified.  What gdbserver seems to do is actually write "ENN" (two
literal 'N's).  So go figure.  I'd be happy to change my additions to
reference a standard explanation of what error packets really look like.
But the mess was here before me and I'm not the one who knows how it ought
to be different.

> > +@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.

Again, just copied another similar place in gdb.texinfo.  I'll happily
change this as you say.  I think the manual may already be inconsistent
with itself in the formatting style for packet text.

> > +@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}.

I've change dthese to @code{E}@var{nn} because you said so.
But every other existing appearance is @code{E}@var{NN}, what I copied.

> The empty item is confusing and will look awkward in print, I think.
> How about this instead:
> 
>   @item @code{""} (empty)

Whatever you say.  @code{} was in Andrew's example, so I copied it.