Re: [needs doc review] Re: [RFA 3/3] Implement support for PowerPC BookE masked watchpoints

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
> Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 18:56:58 -0300
> 
> > >   A @dfn{masked watchpoint} specifies a mask in addition to an address
> > >   to watch.  The @code{mask} argument implies the @code{-location}
> > >   argument, which means that the expression will be resolved to a memory
> > >   address at watchpoint creation time (@pxref{Set Watchpoints}.)
> > 
> > What do you mean by "implies"?  Do you mean that -location must be
> > specified if "mask" is specified?  If so, "implies" is not a good
> > word.
> 
> I mean that if you specify mask, then it's as if you specified -location
> as well. Do you think it's not clear enough?
> 
> > I also don't really understand the part about "resolving to a memory
> > address at watchpoint creation time".  What were you trying to say?
> 
> I tried to explain what -location does in a very short sentence. :-)
> 
> In this version I moved the explanation about masked watchpoints from
> the PowerPC section to the Set Watchpoints section. I think it makes
> more sense there. This also made unnecessary any separate explanation
> about -location since it comes right after the masked watchpoint
> explanation.
> 
> What do you think of this version?

It's okay, but I think the last sentence would be clearer with this
minor change:

   The @code{mask} argument implies @code{-location}.

If you move the paragraph you added below the one that describes the
`-location' switch, this will be perfect, since `-location' will have
been explained immediately before the reference to it in your new text
about masked watchpoints.

Okay with that change.

Thanks.