Re: [PATCH]*3 Re: [RFC] "info powerpc"

[Paul Gilliam <pgilliam@us.ibm.com>]

Ok, I agree.

Door 3 it is:  Do I need anymore more approvals to commit?

-=# Paul #=-

On Friday 16 September 2005 06:56, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 05:10:39PM -0700, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> > My least favorite is the third one.  While it's a clean fix to the
> > problem, it slams the door on any future 'info powerpc' sub-commands. 
> > It also requires a fix so that prefix commands without any
> > sub-commands can be depreciated.  Of course, we could just get rid of
> > the "info powerpc" command without depreciating it for a while
> > first....
> 
> If you just remove it, you don't slam the door on anything.  We can add
> it back the moment we've got a use for it.
> 
> We have a common routine for printing vector registers; I would prefer
> using "info vector" instead of extending "info powerpc".
> 
> How on earth did these tests get added to the FSF sources without the
> command they're testing?  Ah-hah, they didn't.  This is why repository
> history and ChangeLogs are so useful.
> 
> 2002-08-20  Elena Zannoni  <ezannoni@redhat.com>
> 
>         * rs6000-tdep.c (altivec_register_p): Delete.
>         (rs6000_do_altivec_registers): Delete.
>         (rs6000_altivec_registers_info): Delete.
>         (rs6000_do_registers_info): Delete.
>         (_initialize_rs6000_tdep): Remove command 'info powerpc altivec'.
>         (rs6000_gdbarch_init): Remove setting of do_registers_info.
> 
> Here:
>     http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00597.html
> 
> It was Elena's goal to get rid of 'info powerpc altivec'; she just
> didn't update the testsuite, apparently.
>