This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa/doc] correct info about best C++ compilers/debug formats
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- To: carlton at math dot stanford dot edu
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, drow at mvista dot com, mec at shout dot net
- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:19:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] correct info about best C++ compilers/debug formats
- References: <ro1of5t9q3x.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> From: David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
> Date: 03 Feb 2003 10:27:30 -0800
>
> * Eli: Is the TeXinfo okay?
Yes, except that there's a typo in the last sentence: "debugg". (I
recommend "M-x ispell-region RET" after you change something in the
manuals.)
> What about the choice of cindex entries?
> When I actually looked at the index, I found that it generated three
> consecutive entries "C++ and ..." that all pointed at the same
> place
Right, it is not useful to have multiple index entries which all start
with the same string and point to the same place.
> I'm tempted to get rid of the C++ and GCC entry, since that's
> really a special case of C++ and compilers.
I suggest the following index entries:
@cindex debugging C@t{++} programs
@cindex C@t{++} compilers
@cindex debug formats and C@t{++}
@cindex @value{NGCC} and C@t{++}
Thanks!