From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25927 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2008 18:32:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 25919 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2008 18:32:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il (HELO mtaout3.012.net.il) (84.95.2.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:31:51 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.228.238]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K4X006VPQ595280@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:31:58 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:32:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Autogenerate gdbarch doc for internals manual In-reply-to: <4893427D.1000909@codesourcery.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <4893427D.1000909@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00027.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:06:05 -0700 > From: Stan Shebs > > Undeterred by the stunning lack of response to my last internals manuals > query (http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-07/msg00309.html, not too late > to speak up :-) ), Hey, I didn't respond because you didn't ask for any specific decision there. All I see in that message (and I just re-read it to refresh my memory) is that you tell us you are working on a script that would announce discrepancies between the docs and the code; a very good initiative, IMO. > Mechanically, the way I see it working is that running gdbarch.sh > produces a third file, doc/gdbarch.texi, which is then included in > doc/gdbint.texinfo. Some gdbint.texinfo bits will migrate into > gdbarch.sh; I don't think there will be a problem including texinfo > markup in gdbarch.sh, just need basic @foo{} constructs to get passed > through. This is going to be more of a background task for me, but I > wanted to get some agreement on the direction before starting to tinker. You have my agreement. Thanks!