From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elena Zannoni To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: fnasser@cygnus.com, cagney@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Remove unused synchronous code Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:29:00 -0000 Message-id: <15031.48545.653713.555707@kwikemart.cygnus.com> References: <3A28185D.D114FFF4@cygnus.com> <7263-Sat02Dec2000100947+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00389.html Hi, I am going through a list of pending e-mails. (yes, I have been out of the loop for a while.) Eli has a point. I would like to close this issue and leave things as they are for the 5.1 release. We should revisit this after 5.1 is out/branched. OK? Andrew? Thanks Elena Eli Zaretskii writes: > > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:30:05 -0500 > > From: Fernando Nasser > > > > The new event loop has been the default since 1999-06-23. This is > > almost 1 1/2 yrs. > > I don't think it's correct to measure time since the introduction of > the feature into the CVS. I think we need to measure since the first > official release which made it the default, since that's when the > users really see it. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that GDB 5.0 was the first > official release that used the event loop as the default. GDB 5.0 was > released in May 2000, which is only 6 months ago. > > In addition, DJGPP users only got a precompiled binary a few weeks > ago (my fault), so they only now begin using it en masse. > > I think that removing the fallback after a single release is a too > short notice. I think we should keep it for at least one more > version. Please keep in mind that the async code is modeled on Unix > and GNU/Linux systems; other platforms are using emulations of > `select' and related facilities, and the quality of those emulations > might vary... > > > It happens that the provisions for fall-back (run synchronously) are > > getting in the way, making the code illegible > > Perhaps we could discuss the specific problems with retaining the old > code, and find interim solutions for them that won't require excessive > labor. > > > and requiring > > duplicate efforts (you should still make sure that the old way works > > -- have you tested with --noasync after applying your patches?). > > Perhaps the test suite should be run with --noasync as well as without > it?