From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 127579 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2017 18:35:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 127561 invoked by uid 89); 26 Oct 2017 18:35:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:35:07 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.90.203]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) id 1e7mzg-0006IR-1O from Sandra_Loosemore@mentor.com ; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:35:04 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:35:01 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH] expand -fdebug-prefix-map documentation To: Gerald Pfeifer , Jim Wilson References: <1508977574.2549.3.camel@tuliptree.org> CC: From: Sandra Loosemore Message-ID: <59F22AD5.50703@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: SVR-ORW-MBX-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.205) To svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg01984.txt.bz2 On 10/26/2017 11:47 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Jim Wilson wrote: >> The current documentation doesn't explain what the option is for, or >> how one might use it. The attached patch expands the documentation a >> bit to try to explain this. > >> OK? > > Thanks you for fleshing this out, Jim! > > This looks fine to me (modula Sandra's note). Just a question: would > we refer to GDB instead of gdb here? It feels a little in between to > me, whether we are referring to the tool or the actual binary. I'm > sure Sandra will have guidance for us. ;-) Hmmm, yes. "GDB" is the preferred spelling elsewhere in the manual. -Sandra