From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32029 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2007 22:11:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 31978 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2007 22:11:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao104.cox.net) (68.230.240.46) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:10:59 +0000 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070809221028.YDAI1505.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net>; Thu, 9 Aug 2007 18:10:28 -0400 Received: from black ([70.181.32.198]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id ZyAT1X00t4GV2Jm0000000; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:10:28 -0400 Received: from bob by black with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IJGD5-0000Mr-Mc; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:10:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:11:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: msnyder@sonic.net Cc: Nick Roberts , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dead code in mi-interp Message-ID: <20070809221027.GW21125@cox.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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <22328.12.7.175.2.1186694932.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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/msg00186.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:28:52PM -0700, msnyder@sonic.net wrote: > > > 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? > > > > OK, I hadn't realised that. Unless the original author (Andrew Cagney?) > > explains why it's not needed I would still prefer that it wasn't removed. > > 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). Agreed. Bob Rossi