Re: RFA: manual updates for c++

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:00:01 -0700
> 
> -gstabs+ ... I don't know as much about stabs.  My impression is that
> they don't handle C++ very well.  Certainly on the GCC side nobody puts
> any work into them at all, and very little work in GDB.

Maybe we should tell that stabs doesn't work well with C++, then.

> >> +                                               Starting with version
> >> +4.7, @value{NGCC} can emit macro information in a more compact format.
> 
> Eli> Why is this part important to a GDB user?
> 
> A previous sentence mentions that the information is large.  Assuming
> that this earlier sentence provides any value to the GDB user,
> mentioning that the problem can be ameliorated also seems appropriate.

If you think it's important.  It reads as if it isn't.  How about
removing that sentence about large information instead?

Another nit:

> +Now, we compile the program using the @sc{gnu} C compiler,
> +@value{NGCC}.  We pass the @option{-gdwarf-2} @footnote{This is the
> +minimum.  Recent versions of @value{NGCC} support @option{-gdwarf-3}
> +@option{-gdwarf-4}; we recommend always choosing the most recent
> +version of DWARF} AND @option{-g3} flags to ensure the compiler

The last sentence in the @footnote doesn't have a period after it.
Also the @footnote should immediately follow the character after which
you want to see the footnote number in print, without any whitespace.
Finally, the "AND" part will look better in print if you use @strong
or @emph markup.

Sorry I didn't see that before.

Thanks.