Re: [rfa/i386] Make codestream deprecated?

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> 2002-12-01  Andrew Cagney  <ac131313@redhat.com>
>> 
>> 	* i386-tdep.c: Replace `codestream' with `deprecated_codestream'.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not really enthousiastic about this patch.  IMHO a
> comment explaining the reason why one shouldn't copy this bit of code
> would be much better.  I'm willing to rip out this bit of code, and
> replace it with something cleaner and simpler, but this "deprication"
> is only noise to me.

I'll add a comment.  Briefly it will read:

``The deprecated codestream mechanism is entirely redundant.  The dcache 
superseeds it, providing a generic mechanism for caching both 
instruction and data values.  If the dcache has problems or limitations 
than that, and not this code, needs to be fixed.''

While you might think of marking this as deprecated as noice, as I noted 
to Daniel, it has a very real and direct objective:

> 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 :-/

If I don't do this, I find I get a (lets say) less than favourable 
reception when asking a contributor to not [re]use a mechanism 
identified as deprecated via either a comment or bug report.  cf, this 
very code block when cloned into another architecture; or the regcache 
code before I went through and marked much of that as deprecated.

On the other hand, if the code is clearly marked as deprecated, it 
clarifies this situtation - a patch either clearly is or isn't 
using/copying a deprecated mechanism - go directly to goal, do not pass 
go, do not submit patch :-)

So ok?

enjoy,
Andrew