Re: xfer_memory(..., attrib, ...) post mortem

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> I can't argue with anything you've said.  Whether it will work or not
> depends on our committent to execute the above plan.  I have no doubts
> about the first step, it's the second two that give me pause.  If the
> backwards compatible infrastructure "works" well enough, there is no
> incentive to complete the process.  When it comes to the decision to
> obsolete an target because no one has bothered to update to the new
> interfaces, we can't be swayed by the argument that we can't do that
> because the target is important.  IMO if it was really important, it 
> would have been kept up to date.

(Did I reply?)

Yes.  Ensuring that this happens could be politically tricky.  So far 
it's worked though - obsoleting targets has resulted in them being fixed.

To my amasement, that ARI table, has also turned out to be a useful tool 
in this task.  It lets me see what I should be atacking next.

	Andrew