`processor' command

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?


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.n
z/~nickrob

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".

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:54:43 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drowfalse.org>
> Cc: gdbsourceware.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.

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 <drowfalse.org>
> > Cc: gdbsourceware.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

 > > 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.

My preference would be to remove "set processor"
as I find aliases (which
aren't just abbreviations) more to remember.  The command
"info target" tells
you about the target, while the command "info
files" tells you about... er, the
target.

Sometimes they also provide anomalies, e.g, "bt",
"where" and "info stack" are
all the same -- except that hookpost-backtrace doesn't work
with last alias.


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.n
z/~nickrob