On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:39:12AM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> Probably another list of tables. So there'd be a list head for general 
> commands, and a list head for "show" commands.

That's what I would prefer.

> > 2)what is default number of used groups or ddb_command_list entries  
> > 2? (machine table and now default db_command_table)? We can group  
> > commands to more group like gdb does(show, crash, trace, machine,  
> > ffs, uvm, etc..).
> 
> Not sure. I think we're wandering out of my expertise in ddb.

I like the more or less flat structure - and the amount of available
commands (outside the "show" and the "mach" groups) is not that 
big.

> > 3)Is struct db_command good or have I change also this in some way?
> > IMHO I can change cmd_arg to char **cmd_arg and use array of NULL  
> > terminated strigs for arguments and their description.
> 
> I'll leave that to someone else to answer. I'm not sure.

I'm not sure descriptions for individual arguments would be needed.

Martin