From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3905 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2003 18:15:25 -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 3896 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2003 18:15:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (209.53.16.215) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2003 18:15:23 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 18779D34B8; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:15:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit/hpux] Obsolete some definitions only used for hppa-pro Message-ID: <20030422181522.GD914@gnat.com> References: <20030422011559.GN10467@gnat.com> <3EA57465.9020102@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EA57465.9020102@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00405.txt.bz2 > Just fyi: > // OBSOLETE > has a little evilness behind it - it's C++ not ISO C 90. GDB gets way > with it by either using: > > #if 0 > // OBSOLETE ... > #endif > > or just applying it to the entire file. > > Oh, and if something can be simplified by removing a value/macro only > defined in obsolete code then it's a real option. The person that tries > to resurect that obsolete target will need to re-write the section anyway. Ah, ok. I thought this C++-ism was tolerated for obsolete declarations. But this was just nonsense, now that I think of it. I shall fix momentarily and send a new patch (will also take your recommendation to delete the code). Thanks! -- Joel