This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: documentation change for ambiguous linespec patch
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:54:51 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFA: documentation change for ambiguous linespec patch
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Tom Tromey <email@example.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:16:22 -0700
> To my surprise, the ambiguous linespec change mostly makes gdb accord
> better with the existing documentation. So, I did not need many changes
> to the documentation.
> Here is what I propose.
> +* GDB now handles ambiguous linespecs more consistently; the existing
> + FILE:LINE support has been expanded to other types of linespecs. A
> + breakpoint will now have locations at all the matching points in all
How about "...will now be set on all matching locations..."? "Have
locations" sounds a bit confusing; at least I never thought of a
breakpoint as _having_ a location.
> + locations will be added or subtracted according to
> + inferior changes.
Will these additions and removals be announced by GDB? If so, perhaps
an example or a note to that effect is in order.
Also, is "subtracted" the right word here? I use it only as an
arithmetic operation, but I'm not a native speaker.
The rest is (trivially) fine with me. Thanks.