From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23610 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2002 01:02:15 -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 23600 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 01:02:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 01:02:14 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18Igqz-0001u4-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 21:02:37 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18Ieyr-0004xK-00; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:02:37 -0500 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/i386] Make codestream deprecated? Message-ID: <20021202010237.GA17466@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3DEAAB57.4070609@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DEAAB57.4070609@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 07:37:43PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > The attached is to make it clear that codestream isn't the way to go > when trying to improve GDB's performance. I don't see any urgency in > actually removing the code, though. > > The codestream has been supperseeded by a dcache. > > thoughts? Wouldn't a simple comment serve better than adding a dozen copies of the word deprecated? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer