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

Paul Gilliam
2005-09-16T18:51:40Z

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.
>