From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8801 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2009 07:16:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 8724 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2009 07:15:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:15:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D342BAAEA; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id mPtnhlfUmPKg; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B382BAABD; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:15:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C9A15F5BA6; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:16:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pierre Muller Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdbadmin/ss/gdb_ari.sh obsolete->regression Message-ID: <20090416071545.GE7585@adacore.com> References: <007101c9bd46$f8fb9f10$eaf2dd30$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090415063807.GB7585@adacore.com> <000401c9bd99$89bb01b0$9d310510$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000401c9bd99$89bb01b0$9d310510$@u-strasbg.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00363.txt.bz2 > I would tend to agree with you, > but it's just more work... Not so much, as it turns out. Out of all the various entities that your patch highlighted, I got only 2 hits: - One is in a comment; I've sent an email to the maintainer hoping he'd have some time to take a look: http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2009-04/msg00133.html - One is in the documentation. I've sent a patch to remove it. http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-04/msg00362.html I think it's safe to remove all these entries from the ARI, now. > PS: I also think that it would probably be good to leave the unused > functions/macros in at least one GDB release, as people using GDB > source code might still be using such obsolete code, especially if it > was not deprecate'd. There were deprecated and, as you have found out, are no longer used, nor even setup. Defining these macros would have had no effect at all. -- Joel