Re: [PATCH] GDB command-line switches and annotations docs

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > 
 > Elena Zannoni writes:
 > 
 > > > (Are there plans to make gdbmi.texi be part of the manual as well?)
 > > > 
 > >
 > > Eventually yes (Andrew?), right now it is not in prime time form yet. It is
 > > still very rough work in progress.
 > 
 > IMHO, it is much better to link between the two right now, and make
 > any necessary corrections later.  As far as I could see, gdbmi.texi is
 > in quite a good shape, it just lacks a few menus and @node lines to
 > make it a valid Texinfo file.  Most of the work can be done in Emacs
 > automatically.
 > 
 > The current situation, where a large part opf the package is not
 > documented at all, is IMHO much worse.
 > 
 > I can throw together a few patches as outlined above, if that would
 > help.
 > 

I agree with you, but at present the contests of gdbmi.texi are out of
date in a few places. Andrew or I should go through it and make it
better match with the actual MI functions. It shouldn't take long, but
I don't have much time at this moment.

 > > I was planning on removing the -async option, it is now redundant.
 > 
 > It's much easier to remove part of the docs than to write it ;-)
 > Anyway, if -noasync stays, you will need some of what I wrote under
 > its description.
 > 

Yes, definitely.


 > > The behavior you describe is the ultimate goal, we are only
 > > about 50% there.
 > 
 > The truth is, I still don't know enough about the event loop's
 > interaction with the target side to write the docs about it.  But I
 > thought there was no better way to get attention to its being
 > undocumented than to throw some patches on you-all ;-).  I do think
 > that refining the description should be the job of someone who knows
 > the fine details.
 > 

I admit I haven't documented the event loop machinery at all (that
should actually go in the internal manual). I thoroughly commented the
code though, if that's any excuse :-).

I wasn't going to document the existance of target 'async' either,
because that's also supposed to go away, and be absorbed into a new
and improved target 'remote'. There are still a bunch of loose ends to
finish before that's going to happen. So I am not sure what the best
course of action is.

Elena