Re: `processor' command

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:21:24PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:54:43 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 05:05:53PM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > 
> > > The manual says:
> > > 
> > > `set processor'
> > > `processor'
> > >      These are alias commands for, respectively, `set architecture' and
> > >      `show architecture'.
> > > 
> > > The command `processor' doesn't work for me.  As it's an alias anyway how about
> > > getting rid of it?
> > 
> > I guess it was supposed to be "show processor"?  But in any case there
> > isn't one, only "set processor" is implemented.  So I think we can
> > un-document "processor".
> 
> If there is `set processor', there should be also `show processor'.
> So I think we should either remove the former or add the latter.
> 
> I'm not sure what you meant by ``un-document''; if that means leave a
> command, but don't document it, I'm against it.

I meant to remove the documentation for the "processor" command, which
does not exist.  Maybe it did once but the command has already been
removed.

My next choice would be to remove "set processor"; but if you think
it's still in use and worthwhile as an alias, we could add
"show processor" as a new alias instead.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery