From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16379 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2007 11:22:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 16345 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2007 11:22:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao102.cox.net) (68.230.240.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:22:47 +0000 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070810112245.HGSW13778.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net>; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:22:45 -0400 Received: from black ([70.181.32.198]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id aBNl1X00L4GV2Jm0000000; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:22:46 -0400 Received: from bob by black with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IJSZp-0000jW-57; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:22:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:22:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: msnyder@sonic.net, Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dead code in mi-interp Message-ID: <20070810112244.GX21125@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> <18107.58066.160793.367189@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18107.58066.160793.367189@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 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/msg00206.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:00:18PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > 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). > > You would only think of recovering it if you already knew it was there. I've > just explained what I think is the benefit: they provide possible clues about > an asynchronous implementation. Even if that was true, the code should be commented out. It really is a bad thing to have code in the program that is meaningless. Bob Rossi