This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v7 7/7] Extended-remote follow fork documentation
- From: "Breazeal, Don" <donb at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, "Breazeal, Don" <Don_Breazeal at mentor dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:15:30 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/7] Extended-remote follow fork documentation
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1428685786-18094-1-git-send-email-donb at codesourcery dot com> <1428685786-18094-8-git-send-email-donb at codesourcery dot com> <83wq1jsw8m dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On 4/10/2015 10:56 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Don Breazeal <donb@codesourcery.com>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:09:46 -0700
>>
>
>> +@cindex fork events, remote reply
>> +@item fork
>> +The packet indicates that @code{fork} was called, and @var{r}
>
> What does that @var{r} refer to? The previous text mentions
> @var{n}:@var{r} pairs, but there's no @var{n} in this description, so
> it doesn't seem to fit. What am I missing?
Maybe I'm the one who is missing something. I thought that the @var{n}
was implied by '@item fork', because of this text above:
If @var{n} is a recognized @dfn{stop reason},
In this case @var{n} is a stop reason. Subsequently '@item fork' is in
this table:
The currently defined stop reasons are:
@table @samp
I pretty much just copied what had been done for shared library events
in the same table. Should I do this differently? I see that swbreak
and hwbreak aren't the same as the other items.
Thanks
--Don