This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [doc RFA] New option -nh
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: dje at google dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:12:21 +0200
- Subject: Re: [doc RFA] New option -nh
- References: <yjt2sj9wbwd4.fsf@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:46:15 -0700
> From: dje@google.com
>
> This needs a doc RFA.
Here goes:
> +* New command line options:
> +
> +-nh Like -nx, but only disable auto-loading of ~/.gdbinit.
I'd suggest to mention in parentheses what -nx does that -nh doesn't.
> +@anchor{-nh}
> +@item -nh
> +@cindex @code{--nh}
> +Do not execute commands found in @file{~/.gdbinit}, the init file
> +in your home directory.
> +@xref{Startup}.
Likewise here. The previous paragraph, that describes -nx, says:
@itemx -n
@cindex @code{--nx}
@cindex @code{-n}
Do not execute commands found in any initialization files. Normally,
@value{GDBN} executes the commands in these files after all the command
options and arguments have been processed. @xref{Command Files,,Command
Files}.
There's almost nothing in common between this verbiage and what you
suggested for -nh. The reader will have hard time figuring out that
-nh does a subset of what -nx does.
I see 2 possible ways to make the relations between these 2 switches
clear (and I'm okay with either one of them):
. rewrite the -nx documentation to explicitly mention ~/.gdbinit,
site-wide gdbinit etc., in the same style as you described -nh;
then you can leave the -nh description alone, or
. Add a sentence to your -nh description which says something like
"Unlike @code{--nx}, ..." and go on to describe what -nx does, but
-nh does not.
Makes sense?