Actually, there was one call to flash_erase_all_command that needed to 
be updated in mi/mi-main.c. Fixed patch attached.

On 01/09/2017 04:14 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
> cc-ing the list now.
>
> On 01/09/2017 03:32 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> On 17-01-09 02:04 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
>>> Changes in v2:
>>>
>>> - Added NEWS entry.
>>> - Fixed long lines.
>>> - Address printing with paddress.
>>>
>>> Years ago we contributed flash programming patches upstream.  The
>>> following
>>> patch is a leftover one that complements that functionality by adding
>>> a new
>>> command to erase all reported flash memory blocks.
>>>
>>> The command is most useful when we're dealing with flash-enabled targets
>>> (mostly bare-metal) and we need to reset the board for some reason.
>>>
>>> The wiping out of flash memory regions should help the target come up
>>> with a
>>> known clean state from which the user can load a new image and resume
>>> debugging. It is convenient enough to do this from the debugger, and
>>> there is
>>> also an MI command to expose this functionality to the IDE's.
>>>
>>> Regression tested on Ubuntu 16.04 x86-64. No regressions.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> gdb/doc/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2017-01-09  Mike Wrighton  <mike_wrighton@codesourcery.com>
>>>         Luis Machado  <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
>>>
>>>     * gdb.texinfo (-target-flash-erase): New MI command description.
>>>     (flash-erase): New CLI command description.
>>>
>>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> 2017-01-09  Mike Wrighton  <mike_wrighton@codesourcery.com>
>>>         Luis Machado  <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
>>>
>>>     * NEWS (New commands): Mention flash-erase.
>>>     (New MI commands): Mention target-flash-erase.
>>>     * mi/mi-cmds.c (mi_cmd_target_flash_erase): Added
>>> target-flash-erase MI
>>>     command.
>>>     * mi/mi-cmds.h (mi_cmd_target_flash_erase): New declaration.
>>>     * mi/mi-main.c (mi_cmd_target_flash_erase): New function.
>>>     * target-memory.c: Include "memattr.h" and "ui-out.h".
>>
>> I think this is outdated.
>>
>
> Indeed. I originally separated this piece from the one implementing
> memory verification. Fixed.
>
>>>     * target.c (flash_erase_all_command): New function.
>>>     (initialize_targets): Add new flash-erase command.
>>>     * target.h (flash_erase_all_command): New declaration.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> @@ -31863,6 +31873,28 @@ No equivalent.
>>>  @subsubheading Example
>>>  N.A.
>>>
>>> +@subheading The @code{-target-flash-erase} Command
>>> +@findex -target-flash-erase
>>> +
>>> +@subsubheading Synopsis
>>> +
>>> +@smallexample
>>> + -target-flash-erase
>>> +@end smallexample
>>> +
>>> +Erases all known flash memory regions on the target.
>>> +
>>> +The corresponding @value{GDBN} command is @samp{flash-erase}.
>>> +
>>> +The output is a list of flash regions that have been erased, sorted by
>>> +address/size.
>>
>> What does it mean to be sorted by address/size?
>>
>
> It is actually an oversight. No sorting is done (the regions are shown
> in the same order as they are provided by the target).
>
> In reality we only display the starting address and the size of each
> memory region.
>
>>> @@ -3943,6 +3943,48 @@ do_monitor_command (char *cmd,
>>>    target_rcmd (cmd, gdb_stdtarg);
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +void
>>> +flash_erase_all_command (char *cmd, int from_tty)
>>> +{
>>> +  int i;
>>> +  int found_flash_region = 0;
>>
>> bool?
>>
>
> Fixed.
>
>>> +  struct mem_region *m;
>>> +  struct mem_attrib *attrib;
>>> +  struct cleanup *cleanup_tuple;
>>
>> attrib and cleanup_tuple could be declared in the for loop.
>>
>
> Moved these within the loop.
>
>>> +  struct gdbarch *gdbarch = target_gdbarch ();
>>> +  VEC(mem_region_s) * mem_regions = target_memory_map ();
>>
>> Spurious space after *.
>>
>
> Fixed.
>
>>> +
>>> +  /* Iterate over all memory regions.  */
>>> +  for (i = 0; VEC_iterate (mem_region_s, mem_regions, i, m); i++)
>>
>> Since we do C++ now, I guess we can declare the iteration variable in
>> place.
>>
>
> Done.
>
>>> @@ -4233,6 +4275,9 @@ Otherwise, any attempt to interrupt or stop
>>> will be ignored."),
>>>                 set_target_permissions, NULL,
>>>                 &setlist, &showlist);
>>>
>>> +  add_com ("flash-erase", no_class, flash_erase_all_command,
>>
>> To keep following the unwritten rule for naming command functions,
>> could you name this one flash_erase_command?
>>
>
> I've fixed this as well. Thanks for spotting it.
>
>> Otherwise, LGTM.
>>
>
> Updated patch attached.
>
> Thanks,
> Luis
>