Re: [RFA/doc] TARGET_ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS - patch 2 of 4

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>]

> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:47:30 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
> 
> How about the following?
> 
> 	* gdb.texinfo (Breakpoint related warnings): New node.
> 	* gdbint.texinfo (ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS): Document.

Thanks; approved with the following comments:

> +Some processor architectures place constraints on the addresses at
> +which breakpoints may be placed.  For architectures thus constrained,
> +GDB will attempt to adjust the breakpoint's address to comply with the
> +constraints dictated by the architecture.

"GDB" here should be "@value{GDBN}".

> +                          Upon seeing one of these warnings, the user
> +should verify that a breakpoint set at the adjusted address will have
> +the desired affect.

I suggest to say "If you see one of these warnings, you should verify
that a breakpoint ..." instead.

> +E.g, it may be sufficient to place the breakpoint at a later instruction.

The "e.g." here lacks a period after `g'.

> +@value{GDBN} will also issue a warning when stopping at one of these
> +adjusted breakpoints:
> +
> +@smallexample
> +warning: Breakpoint 1 address previously adjusted from 0x00010414 to 0x00010410.
> +@end smallexample

This will almost certainly produce an overfull box when TeX'ed.  I
suggest to break the long line into two (if you think it's important
to know that the message is one long line, you can add a comment to
that effect).

> +@item ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS (@var{address})
> +@findex ADJUST_BREAKPOINT_ADDRESS
> +Given an address at which a breakpoint is desired, return a breakpoint
> +address adjusted to account for architectural constraints on
> +breakpoint placement.  This method is not needed by most targets.

I'd add a @cindex entry here as well.