From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9730 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2007 04:00:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 9667 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2007 04:00:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:00:26 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (50.62.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.62.50]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340F73D9E54; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:00:23 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 37C578FC6D; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:00:19 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18107.58066.160793.367189@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:00:00 -0000 To: msnyder@sonic.net Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dead code in mi-interp In-Reply-To: <22328.12.7.175.2.1186694932.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> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.1.50.8 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00199.txt.bz2 > > 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. This specific change is too small to worry about but collectively I think you're erasing the past. Maybe the code should read: ... struct gdb_exception e = interp_exec (interp_to_use, buff); ^^^^ Note that with synchronous execution you currently get: (gdb) run & Asynchronous execution not supported on this target. (gdb) -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob