[24/24] NEWS and manual changes for command options changes

  On 5/23/19 5:31 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 21:53:27 +0100
>>
>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>> yyyy-mm-dd  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>
>>
>> 	* NEWS (New commands): Mention "maint test-options
>> 	require-delimiter", "maint test-options unknown-is-error", "maint
>> 	test-options unknown-is-operand" and "maint show
>> 	test-options-completion-result".
>> 	(New command options, command completion): New section.
>> 	(Completion improvements): New section.
>> 	Mention that you can abbreviate "unlimited".
>>
>> gdb/doc/ChangeLog:
>> yyyy-mm-dd  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>
>>
>> 	* gdb.texinfo (Command Completion): Mention command options too.
>> 	(Command Options): New node.
>> 	(Threads): Add anchors.  Extend descriptions of the "taas" and
>> 	"tfaas" commands.
>> 	(Backtrace): Describe new options of the "backtrace" command.  Add
>> 	anchors.
>> 	(Frame Apply): Describe new options of the "frame apply" and
>> 	"faas" commands.  Add anchors.
>> 	(Data): Describe new options of the "print" command.  Add anchors.
>> 	(Compiling and Injecting Code): Mention options of the "compile
>> 	print" command.
>> 	(Maintenance Commands): Mention "maint test-options" subcommands
>> 	and the "maint show test-options-completion-result" command.
> 
> Thanks.  

Thank you.


>  A couple of minor comments.
> 
>> +apply all} command.  See @ref{thread apply all}.
> 
> I'd prefer @xref to "See @ref" at the beginning of a sentence.
> 
>> +apply} command.  See @ref{frame apply}.
> 
> Same here.
> 
>> +@item -past-main [@code{on}|@code{off}]
>> +Set whether backtraces should continue past "main".  Related setting:
> 
> "main" is a symbol, so please use @code{main}.
> 
>> +@item -entry-values @code{no}|@code{only}|@code{preferred}|@code{if-needed}|@code{both}|@code{compact}|@code{default}
> 
> Does this long line look reasonable in print?  If not, perhaps using
> just one meta-argument, followed by a table of possible values, would
> be better?

Looks good to me in pdf form.  It all fits in a single line.

> 
>> +@item -past-main [@code{on}|@code{off}]
>> +Whether backtraces should continue past "main".
> 
> Same issue with "main".
> 
>> +apply} command.  See @ref{frame apply}.
> 
> "See @ref" again.
> 
>> +@item -object [@code{on}|@code{off}]
>> +Set printing C++ virtual function tables.  Related setting: @ref{set
>                 ^^^
> C@t{++}, please (here and elsewhere in the patch).
> 
>> +@item -repeats @var{number-of-repeats}|@code{unlimited}
>> +Set threshold for repeated print elements. "unlimited" causes all
>                                             ^^
> Two spaces between sentences.  Also, "unlimited" at the sentence
> beginning looks awkward without capitalization.
> 

Hmm, "unlimited" is a literal, so I think we should use @code for it.
Is is OK this way?  I can rephrase a little to avoid @{unlimited} at
the beginning of the sentence, but I'm trying to be concise here,
since this is meant to be a brief outlook into the options, with a
reference to the "set" command anchor for more info.

Here are the changes I'm making to address your review:

---
 gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
  

> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 16:01:22 +0100
> 
> >> +@item -repeats @var{number-of-repeats}|@code{unlimited}
> >> +Set threshold for repeated print elements. "unlimited" causes all
> >                                             ^^
> > Two spaces between sentences.  Also, "unlimited" at the sentence
> > beginning looks awkward without capitalization.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, "unlimited" is a literal, so I think we should use @code for it.
> Is is OK this way?  I can rephrase a little to avoid @{unlimited} at
> the beginning of the sentence, but I'm trying to be concise here,
> since this is meant to be a brief outlook into the options, with a
> reference to the "set" command anchor for more info.

Yes, I meant some simple rewording.  Like this:

  The value @code{unlimited} causes ...

> Here are the changes I'm making to address your review:

They are fine, thanks.
  

On 5/23/19 4:07 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 16:01:22 +0100
>>
>>>> +@item -repeats @var{number-of-repeats}|@code{unlimited}
>>>> +Set threshold for repeated print elements. "unlimited" causes all
>>>                                             ^^
>>> Two spaces between sentences.  Also, "unlimited" at the sentence
>>> beginning looks awkward without capitalization.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, "unlimited" is a literal, so I think we should use @code for it.
>> Is is OK this way?  I can rephrase a little to avoid @{unlimited} at
>> the beginning of the sentence, but I'm trying to be concise here,
>> since this is meant to be a brief outlook into the options, with a
>> reference to the "set" command anchor for more info.
> 
> Yes, I meant some simple rewording.  Like this:
> 
>   The value @code{unlimited} causes ...
> 

Thanks, I'll use that.

>> Here are the changes I'm making to address your review:
> 
> They are fine, thanks.
> 

Thanks,
Pedro Alves