Re: [PATCH 40/40] Document breakpoints / linespec & co improvements (manual + NEWS)

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri,  2 Jun 2017 13:22:38 +0100
> 
> +For example, assuming a program with symbols named @code{A::B::func}
> +and @code{B::func}, both commands @code{break -function func} and
> +@code{break -function B::func} set a breakpoint on both symbols.

The 2 commands are long and include whitespace, so I'd suggest
enclosing each one in @w{..}, to avoid a line break in the middle of a
command.

Also, I think @kbd is more appropriate here than @code, since you mean
commands the user will type, not just command names.

I'm surprised you didn't change anything where the manual discusses
quoting of names and symbols.  For example, the node "Completion"
explicitly describes a use case with overloaded functions in C++; the
node "Symbols" describes a case with "::" that requires quoting.
There's another example in "Machine Code", and also in "Ambiguous
Expression", and in "Variables".  Maybe you already reviewed all of
those and concluded no changes were necessary, but I just thought I'd
mention them.

> +  ** GDB now has a much improved linespec and explicit locations TAB
> +     completion support, that better understands what you're
> +     completing and offers better suggestions.

Is this a general improvement, or is it limited to C++ symbols?  If
the latter, suggest to mention that.

> +  ** GDB can now complete function parameters in linespecs and
> +     explicit locations, even without quoting.  When setting
> +     breakpoints, quoting around functions names to help with
> +     TAB-completion is generally no longer necessary.

Likewise.

> +  ** GDB can now set breakpoints functions marked with [abi:cxx11]
> +     tags.

"on functions", I think.

And btw, what are those tags?  I don't think I see them documented in
the manual; did I miss something?

Thanks.