Re: [PATCH] MI Doco

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

 > Maybe you meant `commands', `while', etc.--those commands that prompt
 > for the body which ends with `end'?  Then `source' is not part of the
 > endangered commands.

But they do seem to work in a fashion, although the commands in "commands"
don't seem to actually execute.  I think I was confusing this with Bob's
example of breakpoints at overloaded functions.  Clearly, some things
don't work, but I don't know how to express exactly what they are.

 > >  > > ! target.  This is only present when GDB's event loop
 > >  > 
 > >  > Please use @value{GDBN} instead a literal "GDB".
 > > 
 > > I left this unchanged after reading the ensuing discussion.
 > 
 > The discussion was about "(gdb)" vs "(@value{GDBP})".  "GDB" should
 > still be converted to "@value{GDBN}", as that has nothing to do with
 > "set prompt".
 > 
 > But I see you did remove literal "GDB".

Yes, I made a cut and paste error in my reply.

 > ...
 > > In the patch below, I'm trying to group the commands in a similar (but not
 > > identical) fashion to the CLI commands in the main part of the manual.  To
 > > that end, I would like to have the node ordering:
 > > 
 > > * GDB/MI Breakpoint Commands::
 > > * GDB/MI Program Context::
 > > * GDB/MI Thread Commands::
 > > * GDB/MI Program Execution::
 > > * GDB/MI Stack Manipulation::
 > > * GDB/MI Variable Objects::
 > > * GDB/MI Data Manipulation::
 > > * GDB/MI Tracepoint Commands::
 > > * GDB/MI Symbol Query::
 > > * GDB/MI File Commands::
 > > * GDB/MI Target Manipulation::
 > > * GDB/MI Miscellaneous Commands::
 > > 
 > > I've not done this in the patch because it would make it totally unreadable,
 > > of course.  Is such an ordering acceptable?
 > 
 > Yes.

OK, thanks.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob