From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30312 invoked by alias); 17 May 2012 15:45:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 30293 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2012 15:45:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2012 15:45:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444E21C6C95; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:45:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id hNhtO8mf3p0l; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:45:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19291C6C1F; Thu, 17 May 2012 11:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 27B40145616; Thu, 17 May 2012 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:45:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: macro@codesourcery.com, thomas@codesourcery.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, kevinb@redhat.com Subject: Re: [SH] regs command Message-ID: <20120517154502.GE10253@adacore.com> References: <20120516165730.GY10253@adacore.com> <87pqa4qbzp.fsf@schwinge.name> <87r4ukox0y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120516190539.GZ10253@adacore.com> <201205171109.q4HB9Ljc005742@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20120517123827.GB10253@adacore.com> <201205171522.q4HFMWGM026439@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201205171522.q4HFMWGM026439@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00657.txt.bz2 > It's not obvious that such a hierarchy is the right one. I'd put the > -tdep files before the -nat file for example. And I can imagine a > scenario where you'd actually wanted the generic ones to come *after* > the -tdep ones. OK. I think the point is not to try to find the best order, but to provide some specified order. > Frankly, I would just remove the command in question, since it should > never have been there in the first place. It's not much trouble going through the deprecation phase, and it is much friendlier to the users who might have been using this command. But I wouldn't oppose deleting the command outright, on the basis that it should be relatively trivial for the users to find the correct command. -- Joel