On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 10:02:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 9 August 2012 20:25, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 03:42:39PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > >> > For command line options which permit '?' meaning 'please list the > >> > permitted values', add support for 'help' as a synonym, by abstracting > >> > the check out into a helper function. > > >> Applied. Thanks. > > > > I just found out that this patch broke "-cpu ?dump", "-cpu ?cpuid", and > > "-cpu ?model": > > These options appear to be completely undocumented. They're also pretty > ugly syntax and seem to be x86 specific.
Agreed. I wasn't aware it was completely undocumented, I thought there was documentation somewhere. > However we can unbreak them > if we must with a patch like this: > > --- a/vl.c > +++ b/vl.c > @@ -3215,7 +3215,11 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp) > */ > cpudef_init(); > > - if (cpu_model && is_help_option(cpu_model)) { > + /* We have to check for "starts with '?' as well as is_help_option > + * to support targets which implement various weird help options > + * via '?thingy' syntax. > + */ > + if (cpu_model && (is_help_option(cpu_model) || *cpu_model == '?')) { > list_cpus(stdout, &fprintf, cpu_model); > exit(0); > } > > (will send as a proper patch with commit message and signoff tomorrow). > > Any suggestions for what the sane syntax for these options would be? > (ie the analogous change to having '?' go to 'help'). What about "-cpu help,dump" or "-cpu help=dump"? -- Eduardo