From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18233 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 04:44:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18213 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 04:44:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 04:44:12 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB44iC219199 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:44:12 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB44iC224813; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:44:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-70.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.70]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB44iAbS027912; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:44:11 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB44i4k03661; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:44:04 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:44:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031204044404.ZM3660@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses" (Nov 27, 9:30am) References: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> <3FC234C0.1000500@gnu.org> <20031124165047.GA2227@nevyn.them.org> <1031124182547.ZM9776@localhost.localdomain> <3FC26407.9000704@gnu.org> <1031125000932.ZM11256@localhost.localdomain> <3FC60A75.8090803@gnu.org> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 On Nov 27, 9:30am, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Even if the process isn't entirely automated, it's still sometimes > > better to do the conversion all at once. By deprecating something, > > you're forcing someone else (or even a later version of yourself) to > > deal with the problem later on. > > If a contributor wants to add new code, or fix bugs in existing code, > they should not be increasing the use of existing deprecated mechanisms > (after all we should be able to reasonably expect contributors to not > make matters worse). The prime motivator here should our joint goal to > make GDB the best debgger possible, and more immediatly our desire to > fix bugs such as those identified by my rewritten structs.exp. As for > other code, let it bitrot and die. I agree with much of what you say, but I really can't agree with the last part. There is a quite a lot of code which simply cannot be allowed to "bitrot and die". I have already stated that I think the renaming of deprecated interfaces is okay in some instances. I am concerned, however, that this approach is being used in instances where it doesn't really need to be. Kevin