From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 329 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2007 13:53:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 319 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2007 13:53:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:53:15 +0000 Received: from dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.95] helo=caradoc.them.org) by nevyn.them.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HIQ00-0008Mf-1R; Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:53:12 -0500 Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HIPzz-0007YL-P5; Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:53:11 -0500 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 21:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: nickrob@snap.net.nz, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: `processor' command Message-ID: <20070217135311.GB28444@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , nickrob@snap.net.nz, gdb@sourceware.org References: <17877.11681.706400.331373@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070216125442.GA32281@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 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 > > 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