From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30787 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2003 17:35:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30734 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2003 17:35:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Oct 2003 17:35:48 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 8D39C1A4288; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:35:47 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16286.43251.476369.374951@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:35:00 -0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00308.txt.bz2 I was looking at Jeff's patch, and noticed that we have two target methods, called to_target_terminal_ours and to_target_terminal_ours_for_output. We then have two functions target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output (in inflow.c) which behave exaclty the same (look at the parameter of terminal_ours_1 not being used at all). I cannot find any target that sets these pair of methods differently, i.e. there is no difference between the two, ever. Should one of the two be deleted? At some point the two functions in inflow.c used to differ, but in 1993 the difference was deleted, i.e. the parameter of terminal_ours_1 stopped being used. Seems this is something that should be cleaned up. elena