From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1003 invoked by alias); 11 May 2006 03:39:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 994 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2006 03:39:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 03:39:01 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-205-212.inter.net.il [83.130.205.212]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id EDU65908 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 11 May 2006 06:38:56 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 06:02:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060510184434.GA13693@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 10 May 2006 14:44:34 -0400) Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Checking for supported packets - revised Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060314021526.GA802@nevyn.them.org> <20060321051221.GA15578@nevyn.them.org> <20060330215247.GA9062@nevyn.them.org> <20060331135859.GA27522@nevyn.them.org> <20060331141958.GA28073@nevyn.them.org> <20060509230123.GA19291@nevyn.them.org> <20060510184434.GA13693@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:44:34 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > 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.