From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 625 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2007 22:47:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 527 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2007 22:47:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (HELO b.mail.sonic.net) (64.142.19.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:47:04 +0000 Received: from webmail.sonic.net (b.webmail.sonic.net [64.142.100.148]) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l7DMkllP013374; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:46:47 -0700 Received: from 12.7.175.2 (SquirrelMail authenticated user msnyder) by webmail.sonic.net with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <14206.12.7.175.2.1187045207.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> In-Reply-To: <9770.12.7.175.2.1186782564.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> References: <17268.12.7.175.2.1186611933.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <18106.20613.121153.810889@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070809145727.GA27809@caradoc.them.org> <18107.33597.966320.942025@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <22328.12.7.175.2.1186694932.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <18107.58066.160793.367189@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070810112244.GX21125@cox.net> <9770.12.7.175.2.1186782564.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:47:00 -0000 Subject: ping Re: [PATCH] dead code in mi-interp From: msnyder@sonic.net To: msnyder@sonic.net Cc: "Bob Rossi" , "Nick Roberts" , msnyder@sonic.net, "Daniel Jacobowitz" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 >> 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?