This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] info break/watch/trace use get_number_or_range, take two
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, msnyder at vmware dot com
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:50:31 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA] info break/watch/trace use get_number_or_range, take two
- References: <4D62E5E0.9080105@vmware.com> <201102220916.51541.pedro@codesourcery.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:16:51 +0000
> Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
>
> > add_info ("breakpoints", breakpoints_info, _("\
> > -Status of user-settable breakpoints, or breakpoint number NUMBER.\n\
> > +Status of user-settable breakpoints listed, or all breakpoints if no argument.\n\
>
> "listed" doesn't sound obviously referring to the spec
> you pass as argument to the command. "listed where? the
> command itself is printing a list." was my thought. Is
> there any other way to spell that?
How about just losing the "listed" part? What important information
does it convey in this context?