Re: [PROPOSAL] Checking for supported packets - revised

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:26:47PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > +@item qSupported @r{[}:@var{feature} @r{[};@var{feature}@r{]}... @r{]}
>                                                                 ^^^
> This should use @dots{}, not literal dots.

Thanks!  Fixed.

> > +No values of @var{feature} are defined yet.
> 
> 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.

> > +@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.

> > +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.  Would an xref to the entire packet
table, which is in the previous section, be helpful for Z0?  qPart is
in the same table as this paragraph.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery