This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Checking for supported packets - revised
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 06:38:59 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Checking for supported packets - revised
- References: <20060314021526.GA802@nevyn.them.org> <20060321051221.GA15578@nevyn.them.org> <20060330215247.GA9062@nevyn.them.org> <u64lvaw2t.fsf@gnu.org> <20060331135859.GA27522@nevyn.them.org> <uvetuaep4.fsf@gnu.org> <20060331141958.GA28073@nevyn.them.org> <usloxa94o.fsf@gnu.org> <20060509230123.GA19291@nevyn.them.org> <uhd3x91nc.fsf@gnu.org> <20060510184434.GA13693@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:44:34 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>
> > Is there any way to somehow mark this last sentence, so that we will
> > remove it as soon as at least one feature is defined? I'm afraid we
> > will forget.
> >
> > > +Currently, all remote packets which are not mentioned in the response
> > > +will be probed individually, just as if the @samp{qSupported} query
> > > +was not supported. In the future, some new packets may be added to
> >
> > Same here.
>
> Well, I am intending to add a packet of that sort shortly after this
> patch goes in. I couldn't think of any other way to write the
> documentation to reflect the current state, in which there are no
> examples. A @c comment wouldn't help much; it's just as easily
> forgotten.
>
> If you have any ideas on a better way to mark it, I'll do that;
> otherwise, I will simply flag this message, and make sure that
> I revisit it soon.
The best way is to add a comment that has some string for which you
will grep when you make the change that requires the text to be
updated. If you can think about such a string, please add it to the
comment; otherwise I guess we will have to try to remember.
> > > +@item @var{name}?
> > > +The remote protocol packet @var{name} may be supported, and @value{GDBN}
> > > +should attempt to detect the packet when it is needed.
> >
> > "attempt to detect the packet"? Perhaps it's better to say "attempt
> > to detect whether the packet is supported".
>
> How about this?
>
> The remote protocol packet @var{name} may be supported, and @value{GDBN}
> should auto-detect support when it is needed.
That's fine.
> > > +The name of a packet which can be marked as supported or unsupported
> > > +is the text of the packet in this documentation, up to but not
> > > +including the first punctuation character or variable. For example, a
> > > +target which supports hardware watchpoints but not hardware
> > > +breakpoints might report @samp{Z0-;Z1-;Z2+;Z3+;Z4+}. An exception is
> > > +made for @samp{qPart:@var{object}} packets; the name of the packet
> > > +includes the @var{object}, but not the @var{annex}. Individual
> > > +@samp{qPart} objects types must be reported separately.
> >
> > Please add a cross-reference to the two places where the two example
> > packets are described, so that the reader could consult them in case
> > they don't remember the packets' formats by heart.
>
> To Z0 and qPart, you mean? I don't see how to do it. They're not
> nodes; they're @items in tables.
Use @anchor. It lets you specify a location other than a node to
which an @xref can refer. You will find several examples in the
manual.