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: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>, drow at mvista dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:06:25 +0200 (IST)
- Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] correct info about best C++ compilers/debug formats
On 3 Feb 2003, David Carlton wrote:
> I can go with that. I would assume that the + in 'stabs+' has to be
> set off by @t, but TeXinfo doesn't complain; Eli, should I use stabs+
> or stabs@t{+}?
I'd use either @code{stabs+} or simply stabs+. The @t{++} in C@t{++} is
a kind of gimmick, since the C++ language name is a pun on a C operator
++. There's no such pun in stabs+, AFAIK.
> Here's the next version of the patch; it changes this sentence, and
> also replaces some uses of @samp{-gsomething} by @option{-gsomething},
> which I assume is preferred.
Yes, @option is preferred once we require Texinfo 4.0 or later.
> +an effective form for debug info. See @ref{Debugging Options,,Options
> +for Debugging Your Program or @sc{gnu} CC, gcc.info, Using @sc{gnu} CC},
> +for more information.
It is better to use "@xref{something}" rather than "See @ref{something}"
at the beginning of a sentence, since the result will look better in Info
(a single "*Note" instead of a "See *note"). Sorry I didn't catch this
earlier.
Otherwise, this is fine; please go ahead and commit it.
Thanks.