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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

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.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC