From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7134 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2014 22:11:44 -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 7120 invoked by uid 89); 2 Oct 2014 22:11:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 22:11:41 +0000 Received: from [68.104.16.238] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1XZob5-0007wT-Lt for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:11:39 -0400 Message-ID: <542DCD9B.9010400@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 22:11:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Why do functions objfpy_new and pspy_new exist? References: <5423E9C7.3060202@redhat.com> <54248505.7030809@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da9409e14729e5df49d7d1feede25f3b49ad5350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 On 9/25/14, 3:07 PM, Doug Evans wrote: [...] > > I know I've mentioned this before, but since the topic has come up again, > I think GDB could have a formal deprecation process that would allow > us to remove things we'd like to remove (this is for API-like things > which are harder to remove than, e.g., outdated ports). Nominally, the existing process is as described at https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20Obsoleting-code We've also done "deprecate in one release, remove in the next", and added "deprecated_" onto function names and such. Empirically, it hasn't created the desired urgency - people have been content to keep calling deprecated_foo for many years after its deprecation. :-) Stan stan@codesourcery.com