ping Re: [PATCH] dead code in mi-interp

[msnyder@sonic.net]

>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:00:18PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>>>  > > It may be that it just wasn't hooked up because the asynchronous
>>> stuff was
>>>  > > never completed.  Once GDB can work asynchronously then it could
>>> be
>>>  > > removed, if not needed.  Presumably "no side effects" also means
>>> "can do
>>>  > > no harm".
>>>  >
>>>  > Well, it can always be recovered from the CVS repository if it is
>>>  > needed.  Personally I'd rathern not have dead code in there just
>>>  > because it doesn't do any harm (unles it also has some benefit).
>>>
>>> You would only think of recovering it if you already knew it was there.
>>> I've
>>> just explained what I think is the benefit: they provide possible clues
>>> about
>>> an asynchronous implementation.
>>
>> Even if that was true, the code should be commented out. It really is a
>> bad thing to have code in the program that is meaningless.
>
> And as I recall, the precident is that if you #if 0 something out,
> you remove it.

So it seems like three people favor removing it, and one person opposes.

Can we reach a resolution?