From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14716 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2007 14:57:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 14613 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2007 14:57:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:57:30 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D18982CE; Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:57:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC96982C5; Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:57:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IJ9S3-0007Ep-3W; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:57:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: msnyder@sonic.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dead code in mi-interp Message-ID: <20070809145727.GA27809@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , msnyder@sonic.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <17268.12.7.175.2.1186611933.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <18106.20613.121153.810889@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18106.20613.121153.810889@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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/msg00178.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:23:49AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > Must have been meant for something, but seems to have no side effects. > > There are probably no side effects because currently target_can_async_p () > usually returns 0. I hope to add an option to make GDB work asynchronously > after 6.7 is released. Maybe this still won't be needed but I don't really > like these kinds of changes. As they say: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.". > There must be larger cobwebs to blow away. That's not what "no side effects" means - the code literally can't ever have an effect. It creates a string which nothing uses. Why keep it? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery