This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA v2/code+DOCO+NEWS] new "set/show serial baud" command
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: palves at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 19:06:00 +0300
- Subject: Re: [RFA v2/code+DOCO+NEWS] new "set/show serial baud" command
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAAyhtXRSWTdpDc4jiZ2k5zWCNUXUzRxNokN1F_aRdMfuWGsBHQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <87bo6affrh dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <524ECCBB dot 5050307 at gmail dot com> <CAAyhtXQBSOz8sjxSmqGRQNtXHeOJpszMEYhRGyBydBGr-GkZCw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131008035636 dot GC3092 at adacore dot com> <5253F497 dot 6040709 at redhat dot com> <20131008141639 dot GF3092 at adacore dot com> <87siwbhk47 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <20131009112334 dot GJ3092 at adacore dot com> <83li22qtrb dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20131010055928 dot GN3092 at adacore dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:59:28 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: palves@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> > > gdb/doc/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * gdb.texinfo: Replace "set remotebaud" and "show remotebaud"
> > > by "set serial baud" and "show serial baud" (resp) throughout.
> >
> > You didn't mention the node name in the log entry.
>
> That was intentional, because it's a global search and replace.
> It's allowed by the GCS, but if you still prefer I repeat the node
> names, let me know, and I will dig them out.
Yes, I do prefer naming the nodes. This makes it easier to search for
changes that modified a given node.
> > > If you're using a serial line, you may want to give @value{GDBN} the
> > > -@w{@samp{--baud}} option, or use the @code{set remotebaud} command
> > > -(@pxref{Remote Configuration, set remotebaud}) before the
> > > +@w{@samp{--baud}} option, or use the @code{set serial baud} command
> >
> > Is @w really needed here? You have only one word there anyway.
> >
> > Otherwise, OK for the documentation parts.
>
> Thanks! For @w, now that I know what it means :-), I agree it does
> seem useless. But it was there before, so in the spirit of not
> mixing independent changes in the same patch, here is a second one
> that removes it.
Great, thanks.