From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3614 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2008 00:57:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 3599 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2008 00:57:42 -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; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:57:22 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A930798417; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:57:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADEE9840B; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:57:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KICNS-0004lO-Rb; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:57:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Patch: annotations -vs- deprecated hooks Message-ID: <20080714005718.GA18190@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <18554.32994.171402.593716@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18554.39826.254742.402462@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00274.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 06:49:43PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > Nick> This patch, however, while probably safe (I've not checked) > Nick> doesn't seem worthwhile to me since this code _will_ disappear > Nick> in the future anyway. > > Do you know when this will be? If it is soon, then I don't mind > holding off. If it will be a year, or years, then I think it would be > strange to reject a cleanup in favor of some distant, unwritten patch. In practice I don't think it will ever happen. There are inactive or barely active projects which make use of the annotations and as long as they generally get along with newer GDBs I don't see a need to remove them - as long as the implementation is not otherwise a problem. We do still need to discourage new uses, though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery