On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 08:52 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > > How about a warning when it's _not_ explicitly enabled or disabled by > > the user? Specifically, tell the users to try enabling those features > > or to add explicit commands to stop the warnings. Scripts for boards > > where that feature will be safe by default could add the required > > commands, and users for others will be able to read the documentation > > for those commands decide for themselves. > > > > This keeps the default safe while giving users the nudge in the > > direction that you feel they will want to be headed -- eventually. > > I think this is a good way to go forward. > > Here is a though on implementation: each target defines a default > post-reset script, there is some suitable event that exists currently > I'm sure. This post reset script does checks and prints out > hints and warnings.
Anything that requires defining a new default gets a frown of disapproval from me. That breaks backwards-compatibility, which is another reason not to change the default without more consideration and wide-spread testing. A warning in the C code should be enough to induce that desired outcome, if you also tell users to report their results in order to help us decide whether to enable it by default. --Z _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
