This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/commit+doco] GDB/MI: Document support for -exec-run --start in -list-features
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:38:35 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA/commit+doco] GDB/MI: Document support for -exec-run --start in -list-features
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1386051670-28637-1-git-send-email-brobecker at adacore dot com> <83wqjm4cwl dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20131210120252 dot GD3238 at adacore dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:02:52 +0100
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> > @findex exec-run-start-option
> > @cindex support for @option{--start} option in @code{-exec-run}
>
> I can add the @findex for each item in the list. However, can you
> explain why the @cindex. ISTM that it might be better to cross-reference
> this element from the part of the manual that documents the actual
> feature? Otherwise, someone looking at the index on how to "start"
> a program with GDB/MI might find this index entry, follow it, only
> to find how to check for the feature, not how to use it. WDYT?
We should do both, I think.
> > I'd also add an index entry for the entire section
> >
> > @cindex supported @sc{gdb/mi} features, list
>
> Attached is a patch that does that.
Thanks.
> Incidentally, I've been meaning to talk about a small nit: Why are
> we adding the anchors and indexing commands after the @section/node/etc?
> When you click on the reference, the browser jumps to the text, but
> because the anchor if after the section title, we're not seeing it.
"It" being what? the section title or something else? I'm afraid I
don't understand the problem.
> > >From the past couple of weeks, it sounds like this section will grow
> > very fast (so maybe it should become a full-fledged @node).
>
> After further consideration, and despite the fact that I said that
> the list might not grow that fast, I still tend to agree with you.
> I'll do that next. I think we should extract the text out of the
> "misc[...]" node, and move it up to its own node.
Thanks.