This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: uweigand at de dot ibm dot com, thiago dot bauermann at gmail dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, pedro at codesourcery dot com, jkratoch at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:11:37 +0300
- Subject: Re: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup
- References: <200908051814.n75IED4s005139@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <m3ab2dgcht.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, thiago.bauermann@gmail.com (Thiago Jung Bauermann),
> gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com,
> jkratoch@redhat.com
> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:58:54 -0600
>
> I think there is still a need for an internals document, because there
> are things worth documenting that don't have a natural location in a
> source file. I'm thinking of things like coding conventions, HIG
> guidelines for new commands, etc -- things that affect future decisions
> but that are not inherent in the code.
That's one reason for the internals manual. The other -- which IMO is
a more important one (but I'm in minority here) -- is that Texinfo
allows you to organize the documentation for easy reading in ways code
comments never will. You cannot have index entries in comments, and
you cannot have cross-references which are easy to be followed, two
features without which reading about a complicated topic described in
several places is a PITA.
So ideally, we should have both code comments and corresponding manual
docs, IMO.