On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Nathan Binkert <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On December 22nd, 2010, 4:23 p.m., *Steve Reinhardt* wrote: > > Is there a real need for backward compatibility? Maybe we could have > --trace-flags print a polite error message letting people know that the > option has been renamed, so people's brains have time to retrain themselves, > but if we really want to start using the new name then hanging on to the old > option is only going to prolong the confusion IMO. Others may differ... > > I guess not. I thought you (and others) might complain. I'll add an error > message for --trace-flags, but I'll convert everything to debug flags. > > (switching to regular email... these nested conversations via reviewboard get awkward IMO) I didn't say I won't complain ;-). However, if we're going to switch, let's be serious about it and not go halfway. It didn't occur to me before that there are several other arguments that get affected: --trace-help, --trace-start, --trace-file, and --trace-ignore. Are you planning on just doing s/trace/debug/ on all of these? I guess that's OK; the only one I worry about is --debug-help, which seems like it's asking for a lot more than just listing flags. I don't think we need error messages on all of them (since none of them make sense w/o --trace-flags anyway). The other interesting thing is that --debug-break now fits in with this group, for better or for worse. I like that it's not so lonely anymore, but it's the only one that's not related to flags. Steve
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
