This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 3/5] range stepping: gdb
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:05:35 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] range stepping: gdb
- References: <20130514191026 dot 13213 dot 39574 dot stgit at brno dot lan> <20130514191047 dot 13213 dot 8476 dot stgit at brno dot lan> <83k3n173ao dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5193621C dot 50603 at redhat dot com> <83ppws5w00 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <519381E9 dot 3020007 at redhat dot com> <83bo8c5pb7 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5193948A dot 9090609 at redhat dot com> <5193D1FE dot 9070804 at redhat dot com> <83sj1n4fum dot fsf at gnu dot org> <519A6EC1 dot 6070306 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 19:43:13 +0100
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> On 05/16/2013 07:08 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:20:46 +0100
> >> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> >> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> >>
> >> What do you think of this?
> >
> > I think it's a really good and clear description.
> >
> >> I'm okay with removing the whole second paragraph ("If the range is
> >> empty...") if you think the first paragraph is already clear enough.
> >
> > The first paragraph is clear enough, but I find the second paragraph
> > reassuring me in that the interpretation of the first was correct. So
> > I think it is better to leave both.
>
> Sorry for taking long to respond, and letting the context potentially
> slip from you. Here's the full updated patch with that bit merged in.
> Nothing else in the docs changed. I've updated a comment in
> gdbthread.h, giving it a similar clarification treatment.
That's OK with me, thanks.