From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29017 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2014 21:11:30 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 29003 invoked by uid 89); 31 Jul 2014 21:11:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:11:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE7A1162E8; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:11:26 -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 1PABhNdZ1VBY; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:11:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C211161B2; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:11:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 963E047740; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 21:53:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Delete struct inferior_suspend_state Message-ID: <20140731211124.GA3132@adacore.com> References: <20140731193050.GA7927@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20140731200529.GG14672@adacore.com> <20140731204242.GH14672@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00838.txt.bz2 > That's a general concern, yes. > My comments in this thread are confined to the particular case at hand. Jan was saying that he does not mind it if the code gets removed. So I think we can remove it. Jan also asked that we add a comment to mark the location where the code should be add should we need it. I don't mind, but these are about something that has become a fairly general and standard paradigm, so I don't personally really see much usefulness in that, while things may change in the future, making those comments incomplete or incorrect. Commented-out code should be avoided, and removed if found. There are no absolute rules as far as I am concerned, so we may one day face a situation where it's best to ignore that rule. But we'd have to justify why that's best before going ahead. In this particular case IMO, the convenience doesn't justify us keeping the code around, so I would go ahead removing it. -- Joel