From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7699 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2014 20:53:08 -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 7689 invoked by uid 89); 9 Aug 2014 20:53:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yh0-f44.google.com Received: from mail-yh0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-yh0-f44.google.com) (209.85.213.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:53:05 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f73so5211142yha.17 for ; Sat, 09 Aug 2014 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.93.170 with SMTP id l30mr11733197yhf.32.1407617584021; Sat, 09 Aug 2014 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.66.138 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Aug 2014 13:53:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53E55C6F.80901@earthlink.net> References: <53E55C6F.80901@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Delete struct inferior_suspend_state From: Doug Evans To: Stan Shebs Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00173.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Stan Shebs wrote: > On 7/31/14, 12:10 PM, Doug Evans wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I happened across some #if 0's in the code and thought that odd. >> >> I found the relevant thread here: >> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-06/msg00370.html >> >> Any desire to continue to keep this, or can we delete it? >> [I don't have a strong preference, but it feels like it's time.] > > I was sure we had set a policy to delete code instead of doing #if 0, > but I can't find anything in writing that says so. > > In any case, retaining dead code seems pointless when version control > systems make it easy to find again. ... assuming you know it's there to look for. In this particular case, the intent is to leave documentation on how it's intended a particular bit of code be extended (in part because C doesn't allow empty structs so a compromise is made). Would anyone faced with a particular situation such as this go back through the repo looking just in case such documentation was there and then got deleted? Perhaps, but I'd totally understand if someone ended up putting time into it only to be told a decision has been made to do it differently and being disappointed that the documentation of that decision was in deleted text recorded only in the repo. [It may turn out that the "decision" is not an absolute one of course, but it's still documentation we're talking about, not (dead) code.] Maybe in addition to a rule to not use #if 0, we also need a rule to not document how it's intended code be extended (at least not as the code). I can see a case made for either side of this, depending on the situation.