From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fernando Nasser To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Eli Zaretskii , fnasser@cygnus.com, cagney@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Remove unused synchronous code Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:38:00 -0000 Message-id: <3AB7BEE4.DEE48DB3@redhat.com> References: <3A28185D.D114FFF4@cygnus.com> <7263-Sat02Dec2000100947+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <15031.48545.653713.555707@kwikemart.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00391.html Elena Zannoni wrote: > > Hi, I am going through a list of pending e-mails. > (yes, I have been out of the loop for a while.) > > Eli has a point. > I would like to close this issue and leave things as they are > for the 5.1 release. > We should revisit this after 5.1 is out/branched. > I would like to have a decision to remove it right after the branch, as we remove the pre-ui-out code. We have already seem a few instances of fixes/changes being applied to only one version of the code (this on the ui-out/non-ui-out case -- the non-async is probably stale as async has been the default for so long).. Fernando > OK? > Andrew? > > Thanks > Elena > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:30:05 -0500 > > > From: Fernando Nasser > > > > > > The new event loop has been the default since 1999-06-23. This is > > > almost 1 1/2 yrs. > > > > I don't think it's correct to measure time since the introduction of > > the feature into the CVS. I think we need to measure since the first > > official release which made it the default, since that's when the > > users really see it. > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that GDB 5.0 was the first > > official release that used the event loop as the default. GDB 5.0 was > > released in May 2000, which is only 6 months ago. > > > > In addition, DJGPP users only got a precompiled binary a few weeks > > ago (my fault), so they only now begin using it en masse. > > > > I think that removing the fallback after a single release is a too > > short notice. I think we should keep it for at least one more > > version. Please keep in mind that the async code is modeled on Unix > > and GNU/Linux systems; other platforms are using emulations of > > `select' and related facilities, and the quality of those emulations > > might vary... > > > > > It happens that the provisions for fall-back (run synchronously) are > > > getting in the way, making the code illegible > > > > Perhaps we could discuss the specific problems with retaining the old > > code, and find interim solutions for them that won't require excessive > > labor. > > > > > and requiring > > > duplicate efforts (you should still make sure that the old way works > > > -- have you tested with --noasync after applying your patches?). > > > > Perhaps the test suite should be run with --noasync as well as without > > it? -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9