From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30115 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2005 18:51:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30084 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Sep 2005 18:51:32 -0000 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (HELO e31.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.129) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:51:32 +0000 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j8GIpTAx068836 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:51:30 -0400 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j8GIoDg7094094 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:50:13 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8GIoDcH008540 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:50:13 -0600 Received: from dyn9047022123-009047022095.beaverton.ibm.com (dyn9047022123-009047022095.beaverton.ibm.com [9.47.22.95]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j8GIoCxb008510 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:50:13 -0600 From: Paul Gilliam Reply-To: pgilliam@us.ibm.com To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH]*3 Re: [RFC] "info powerpc" Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:51:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200509091633.02630.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> <200509141710.39794.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> <20050916135602.GA3473@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20050916135602.GA3473@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509161150.12329.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00116.txt.bz2 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 > > * 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. >