On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:52 PM, David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net> wrote: > On Tuesday 29 September 2009, Ųyvind Harboe wrote: >> > Would handling "-expected-id 0" as a "match anything" wildcard >> > suit, as an explicit "stifle warnings" option for (2a) or, in >> > fact, any branch of (2)? >> >> Don't override the meaning of integers, use a separate keyword :-) > > There's long been special handling for "-expected-id 0"; > I'm aiming for a minimal patch.
Overloading meaning of integers rarely leads to anything good. Even if it was done this way before, doesn't make it good design... I'd rather see that with *no* "-exepected-id"'s listed, no check happens. But I should look a bit more into the syntax before jumping to conclusions here... -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
