Closing the loop here: On 10/28/2016 03:25 PM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
>> Maybe I should just remove all mentions of a "default" from the text? ... >> Would that help ? > > that makes it even more clear (and simple). > On the other hand, now expressing more than one default is not > considered an error any longer (although the extra defaults serve no > purpose); in the end it wouldn't break backwards compatibility, so why not. > > Basically a "default" e.g. "s" is the same as specifying "s:-1". This > does make the implementation of the stub easier. That gdb doc simplification is in master now, and live at the same url. > thanks a lot for your prompt and detailed reply! Np! Thank you too. -- Pedro Alves
