This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Include GDB/MI docs in GDB manual
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Subject: Re: Include GDB/MI docs in GDB manual
- From: David Whedon <davidw at gordian dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
- cc: Dmitry Sivachenko <dima at Chg dot RU>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
3 options?
1. leave as standalone doc: I'm afraid it wouldn't get as much exposure,
and perhaps not be used as much as if it were more visible. I'd like to
see it integrated into one of the two below:
2. include in gdb.texinfo : the current manual is about 212 pages (pdf)
and gdbmi is about 52 pages. gdbmi is useful for a small subset of gdb
users. The increase in length is only a problem for people who want to
print the document. Additionally, if a casual user just happenned to turn
to a gdbmi seciton, and were totally unfamiliar with gdb, they might be
turned off by what they percieved to be a bad interface, hopefully most
people would notice quickly that it was a machine interface.
3. include in gdbint.texinfo : I can see why gdbmi isn't really
"internals". It was written specifically so that people don't need to know
about gdb internals and can still use it.
--------
If we are concerned about overall document length, and the occasional user
who will be confused by the inclusion of the gdbmi info, then gdbmi could
be included in gdbint. However, to ensure that people who want to find it
can, a _very_ small section could be added to gdb.texinfo:
<new section>
Machine Interface
GDB/MI is a line based machine oriented text interface to GDB. It is
specifically intended to support the development of systems which use the
debugger as just one small component of a larger system.
This interface is documented in the Gdb Internals manual.
</new section>
-David
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > May be it is possible to reconsider this question?
>
> By all means, let's hear what others think.
>
> Comments, anyone?
>