Re: [avrdude-dev] Fix warnings patch

[E. Weddington]

> 
> > I would certainly recommend reconsidering the usage of -
e. 
> > It's definitely more common to erase then program, than 
> > programming without erasing. Why require a switch for 
> > common usage?
> 
> I really don't have any major objection to this.  I only 
wonder if the
> decibel level of complaints will be louder if we go the 
other way.  We
> may instead have people then complain that: "Why did my 
eeprom get
> erased when I programmed my flash?"  That assumes a 
programming
> sequence of: erase, program eeprom, program flash.  That 
would do the
> wrong thing if an erase cycle defaulted before 
programming the flash.
> 
> Of course, we could make avrdude a little smarter by 
depricating the
> -f -i/-o and -m options and prefering folks use -U 
instead.  Then,
> avrdude can look at all the memory operations specified 
and if any one
> of them specify the flash, then do an erase cycle before 
starting any
> programming.  This would do the right thing most of the 
time, assuming
> folks specified all their memory programming on one 
command line and
> not across multiple invocations.

[Sorry about the bad quoted text formatting above.]

My 2 cents would go to "Use -U and deprecate the other 
options and do smart erasing" feature. Because, you're 
right, that would do the right thing most of the time. If 
people did multiple invocations, then it's up to them to 
manage their memory correctly.

Eric