From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29652 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2007 18:39:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 29644 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2007 18:39:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (HELO shell4.bayarea.net) (209.128.82.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:39:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 16974 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2007 11:31:07 -0700 Received: from 209-128-106-254.bayarea.net (HELO ?192.168.20.7?) (209.128.106.254) by shell4.bayarea.net with SMTP; 25 Jun 2007 11:31:07 -0700 Message-ID: <468009EA.4040504@eagercon.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:39:00 -0000 From: Michael Eager User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy CC: Stan Shebs , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: What's an annex? stratum? References: <467D5FEF.7010900@eagercon.com> <467D6D1F.7090507@earthlink.net> <467D6FB8.4080909@eagercon.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy wrote: > For what it's worth --- we don't invest enough time in > doc/gdbint.texinfo to keep it a clear, accurate reference to the > code. (For me, at least, this is a deliberate decision.) It's more a > collection of the clearer explanations that have appeared on the > mailing list over time. Unfortunately, much of it is obsolete. Some sections, like 9.6, make this explicit. Other sections say that the area is in flux, like section 9.7. Other sections don't tell you that they are out of date (like the section about libgdb?). Some important parts are simply missing, like the sections titled Console Printing, TUI, Frame Interpretation, Inferior Call Setup, and others. I don't mean to harp on the documentation, but often the "clearer explanations" amount to commentary about how the old technique didn't work well and the new technique is better. That may be true, but it doesn't reveal much about how to use the technique. If I get to the point where I think I really understand an area, I'll be happy to contribute to documentation improvements. I'm not there at the moment. -- Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077