From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A26A3854835 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:54:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6A26A3854835 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:34620) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oeIKx-0004KY-NW; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:54:03 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2436 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oeIKx-0006hk-AQ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:54:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 18:53:49 +0300 Message-Id: <83y1u0dfjm.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves Cc: ptsneves@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <8ed127eb-221b-2b85-1019-1968060f68bc@palves.net> (message from Pedro Alves on Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:50:20 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] gdb/python doc: Move unwinder skeleton code References: <20220528115509.3865342-1-ptsneves@gmail.com> <20220603160139.136115-1-ptsneves@gmail.com> <20220603160139.136115-4-ptsneves@gmail.com> <83wndxbtwn.fsf@gnu.org> <8ed127eb-221b-2b85-1019-1968060f68bc@palves.net> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:54:05 -0000 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:50:20 +0100 > > So I think the manual should be fixed by dropping the "or @code{gdb}", resulting in: > > Passing @code{None} adds @var{unwinder} to the @value{GDBN}'s global unwinder list. > > Actually, the "the" in "to the @value{GDBN}'s" looks wrong to me. So I think we > should really say: > > Passing @code{None} adds @var{unwinder} to @value{GDBN}'s global unwinder list. How about If @var{locus} is @code{None}, that stands for @value{GDBN}'s global unwinder list. I think this is clearer and less likely to cause misinterpretation.