From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12035 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2002 01:51:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12027 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 01:51:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.114.171.218) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 01:51:28 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E593E4B; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:51:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DEABC8F.8010407@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 17:51:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/i386] Make codestream deprecated? References: <3DEAAB57.4070609@redhat.com> <20021202010237.GA17466@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 07:37:43PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> The attached is to make it clear that codestream isn't the way to go >> when trying to improve GDB's performance. I don't see any urgency in >> actually removing the code, though. >> >> The codestream has been supperseeded by a dcache. >> >> thoughts? > > > Wouldn't a simple comment serve better than adding a dozen copies of > the word deprecated? Been there, tried that. As best I can tell, the only thing that makes someone stop and think, is the word deprecated in the name. Coders don't always read the comments, reviewers can't keep track of everything that is being eliminated :-/ Andrew