* linux-thread.o no longer used
@ 2001-12-08 11:34 Jim Blandy
2001-12-09 13:43 ` Kevin Buettner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2001-12-08 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
With the change I just committed below, there are no longer any users
of linux-thread.o. Can we delete this file?
2001-12-08 Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
* config/s390/s390.mh: Don't use the linux-thread.o module;
thread-db.o, lin-lwp.o, and proc-service.o should work just fine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-thread.o no longer used
2001-12-08 11:34 linux-thread.o no longer used Jim Blandy
@ 2001-12-09 13:43 ` Kevin Buettner
2001-12-09 14:29 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Buettner @ 2001-12-09 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Blandy, gdb
On Dec 8, 2:36pm, Jim Blandy wrote:
> With the change I just committed below, there are no longer any users
> of linux-thread.o. Can we delete this file?
lin-thread.[co] is another one that's no longer used.
For both of these files, it may be better to just mark them as
obsolete for a while since it's occassionally useful to be able to
refer to these old versions. Of course if it is deleted, we can still
check out an old version of the file from the Attic, but it is
somewhat less convenient than just having the file there to look at.
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-thread.o no longer used
2001-12-09 13:43 ` Kevin Buettner
@ 2001-12-09 14:29 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-12-09 17:12 ` Kevin Buettner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2001-12-09 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Buettner; +Cc: Jim Blandy, gdb
> n Dec 8, 2:36pm, Jim Blandy wrote:
>
>
>> With the change I just committed below, there are no longer any users
>> of linux-thread.o. Can we delete this file?
>
>
> lin-thread.[co] is another one that's no longer used.
>
> For both of these files, it may be better to just mark them as
> obsolete for a while since it's occassionally useful to be able to
> refer to these old versions. Of course if it is deleted, we can still
> check out an old version of the file from the Attic, but it is
> somewhat less convenient than just having the file there to look at.
Here I think the code should just go. We'll (well I'll) otherwize make
the same mestake again of not realizing that something is using legacy code.
This is different to the target case. In the above, functionality was
replaced. With deleted targets, we're trying to remove targets.
enjoy,
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-thread.o no longer used
2001-12-09 14:29 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2001-12-09 17:12 ` Kevin Buettner
2001-12-09 19:02 ` Jim Blandy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Buettner @ 2001-12-09 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney, Kevin Buettner; +Cc: Jim Blandy, gdb
On Dec 9, 2:29pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Here I think the code should just go. We'll (well I'll) otherwize make
> the same mestake again of not realizing that something is using legacy code.
>
> This is different to the target case. In the above, functionality was
> replaced. With deleted targets, we're trying to remove targets.
That's fine. I don't have strong feelings about it since I can
make local copies of the files that I want to refer to. Plus, they
are still in the repository (albeit, in the Attic) which means that
we can still get at them if we want to.
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-thread.o no longer used
2001-12-09 17:12 ` Kevin Buettner
@ 2001-12-09 19:02 ` Jim Blandy
2001-12-09 19:06 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2001-12-09 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kevin Buettner; +Cc: Andrew Cagney, Jim Blandy, gdb
Okay. A patch to delete those files is going to look stupid, and it
won't really work (patch just truncates them to zero length, rather
than deleting them). So may I just `cvs rm' the files, commit the
change, and post a verbal 'PATCH' message to gdb-patches?
Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com> writes:
>
> On Dec 9, 2:29pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > Here I think the code should just go. We'll (well I'll) otherwize make
> > the same mestake again of not realizing that something is using legacy code.
> >
> > This is different to the target case. In the above, functionality was
> > replaced. With deleted targets, we're trying to remove targets.
>
> That's fine. I don't have strong feelings about it since I can
> make local copies of the files that I want to refer to. Plus, they
> are still in the repository (albeit, in the Attic) which means that
> we can still get at them if we want to.
>
> Kevin
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-thread.o no longer used
2001-12-09 19:02 ` Jim Blandy
@ 2001-12-09 19:06 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2001-12-09 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Blandy; +Cc: Kevin Buettner, gdb
> Okay. A patch to delete those files is going to look stupid, and it
> won't really work (patch just truncates them to zero length, rather
> than deleting them). So may I just `cvs rm' the files, commit the
> change, and post a verbal 'PATCH' message to gdb-patches?
[completly off topic]
I sometimes create a patch but forget to specify the `-N' flag so the
sillyness is missing. CF me removing obosolete targets.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-12-10 3:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-12-08 11:34 linux-thread.o no longer used Jim Blandy
2001-12-09 13:43 ` Kevin Buettner
2001-12-09 14:29 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-12-09 17:12 ` Kevin Buettner
2001-12-09 19:02 ` Jim Blandy
2001-12-09 19:06 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox