From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19385 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2005 22:45:29 -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 19363 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2005 22:45:26 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:45:26 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51) id 1DpDDJ-0006nN-7I; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:45:25 -0400 Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Removal of markup annotations Message-ID: <20050703224525.GB26046@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17071.40307.949193.158796@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050703190449.GJ13811@nevyn.them.org> <17096.24639.940089.355645@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17096.24639.940089.355645@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:01:35AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > This patch cleans up the code quite considerably and hopefully will relieve > > > some of the pressure to remove the remaining annotations. > > > > Is there "pressure"? I don't see the point in snipping out bits of > > -annotate=2 until we're ready to remove it entirely, which I would like > > to do but I accept that we are not yet ready for. > > Its hard for me to tell if the pressure is real or imagined. There _was_ > pressure two years ago (around Jan 2002) but the people involved aren't > currently active on the mailing list. The idea behind level 3 annotations > _was_ to allow snipping out a (large) bit of the sprinkled code for > annotations. Its not a problem for me. If its not a problem for anyone else, > then it might as well stay (although that does beg the question as to why > it needs to be removed at all). Eventually, we'll make changes to GDB that will make it hard to preserve the structure of annotations. We've probably made several already - an example is the interps.c change that you're talking about fixing in another thread. The nature of annotations makes it hard to preserve their reliability. I just want to approach it from the other side. When MI is ready, or we've got a patch that is otherwise good but hoses some annotations, then let's start deleting them. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC