On 2011-07-25 14:22, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 25 July 2011 13:18, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >> On 2011-07-25 14:05, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> In fact having thought about it a bit I'm going to go further >>> and say that the whole idea of a "default machine" is a rather >>> x86-centric idea -- most architectures don't really have a >>> single machine type that's used by just about everybody, >>> always has been, and isn't likely to become obsolete in the >>> future. So if we're reworking the command line API to >>> supersede "-M" then we shouldn't have a default at all. >> >> Then you may want to drop is_default = 1 from integratorcp and prepare >> the main loop to face a NULL machine. > > We can't change the default machine for -M, that would break > backwards compatibility. All we can do is avoid having a notion > of "default machine" in new command line syntax.
The new syntax can't change is that as we cannot tell apart the omitting of -M from that of -machine. Both will have the semantic "use default machine". Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
