[doc] NEWS: QCatchSyscalls: simplify

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 18:47:45 +0200
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be,
>         sergiodj@redhat.com, palves@redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org, xdje42@gmail.com,
>         scox@redhat.com, Josh Stone <jistone@redhat.com>
> 
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 04:09:14 +0100, Josh Stone wrote:
> > --- a/gdb/NEWS
> > +++ b/gdb/NEWS
> > @@ -120,6 +120,21 @@ N stop reply
> >    threads are stopped).  The remote stub reports support for this stop
> >    reply to GDB's qSupported query.
> >  
> > +QCatchSyscalls:1 [;SYSNO]...
> > +QCatchSyscalls:0
> > +  Enable ("QCatchSyscalls:1") or disable ("QCatchSyscalls:0")
> > +  catching syscalls from the inferior process.
> > +
> > +syscall_entry stop reason
> > +  Indicates that a syscall was just called.
> > +
> > +syscall_return stop reason
> > +  Indicates that a syscall just returned.
> > +
> > +QCatchSyscalls:1 in qSupported
> > +  The qSupported packet may now include QCatchSyscalls:1 in the reply
> > +  to indicate support for catching syscalls.
> > +
> >  * Extended-remote exec events
> >  
> >    ** GDB now has support for exec events on extended-remote Linux targets.
> 
> I find this format non-standard/confusing.  OK to check-in this update?

Is it really that bad?  I generally tend to let people say things in
their own words, as long as it's readable.  But if you insist...