From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4362 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2007 21:52:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 4350 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2007 21:52:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:52:10 +0000 Received: (qmail 19496 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2007 21:52:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 5 Dec 2007 21:52:08 -0000 To: Pawel Piech Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Non-stop multi-threaded debugging References: <474CFA34.1030309@windriver.com> <4755DD05.5030907@windriver.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4755DD05.5030907@windriver.com> (Pawel Piech's message of "Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:04:37 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 Pawel Piech writes: > I'm glad to hear that you're receptive to feedback in defining the > protocol for these new features. I will be glad to write up my > proposal as a starting point for discussion. That'd be great! > I've never participated > on this list before or in any other GDB forum, so forgive my > ignorance, but is this mailing list the appropriate place for this > discussion? Is there a bugzilla or other bug database where I could > post this document? And what is the best format for such design > document. This is the right list for general discussion like this. If one has a patch for discussion or review, that belongs on gdb-patches. We haven't made a practice of putting documents in an issue tracker; I don't think anyone has proposed it. We just link to the archive, as I did in the message you replied to. The GDB documentation is written in texinfo. When I've written draft documentation for discussion, I've written it in texinfo, and then posted the output from 'makeinfo --plaintext' for review and discussion. But if it's not intended to go into a manual, then plain text is what we usually use.