Re: [SH] regs command

Mark Kettenis
2012-05-17T15:23:23Z

> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 05:38:27 -0700
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
>
> > What's the technical reason and what do you propose as the alternative?
> > Personally I see no problems with a hierarchical structure of initialisers
> > as long as the hierarchy is well-defined so that people can rely on that.
> > I can give you a name of a complex project that works very well with such
> > an arrangement, and they actually have as many as eight levels.
>
> I would tend to agree with that, I don't see what we would have to lose
> by doing so. I even thought that we could also include -nat files as
> well in the mix. For instance:
> - all files except the files to follow, in undefined order;
> - all -nat files, in undefined order;
> - all -tdep files, in undefined order.

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. I guess what I'm saying that I'm not convinced that
the current case, the desire to deprecate a command that should never
have been there in the first place, is necessarily a good case to base
this decision on.

Frankly, I would just remove the command in question, since it should
never have been there in the first place.