Re: [PATCH v6 10/10] btrace: Extend ptwrite event decoding.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: "Willgerodt, Felix" <felix.willgerodt@intel.com>
> CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, "Metzger,
>  Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 14:02:07 +0000
> 
> > >  *** Changes since GDB 12
> > >
> > > +* GDB now supports printing of ptwrite payloads from the Intel Processor
> > > +  Trace during 'record instruction-history', 'record function-call-history',
> > > +  all stepping commands and in  Python.  Printing is customizable via a
> > 
> > Can we rephrase the "and in Python" part to be less confusing and
> > ambiguous?  (Also, there's an extraneous blank character there.)
> 
> The NEWS file very often says "in Python".
> But it is a fair point. How about "and in the Python API?"

I think it is better to use the same wording as you did in the manual.

> > Btw, it sounds like this functionality is only available if GDB was
> > built with Python?  If so, I think other places where you mention this
> > in the manual should indicate that the feature is only available
> > through Python.
> 
> That is true. Yet most of the documentation is in python.texi for that reason.
> Do you think that is not enough?

I was talking about stuff outside of python.texi.