This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa/i386] Make codestream deprecated?
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 15:30:21 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfa/i386] Make codestream deprecated?
- References: <3DEAAB57.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3E1C878B.email@example.com>
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:18:19PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >>2002-12-01 Andrew Cagney <email@example.com>
> >> * i386-tdep.c: Replace `codestream' with `deprecated_codestream'.
> >Sorry, but I'm not really enthousiastic about this patch. IMHO a
> >comment explaining the reason why one shouldn't copy this bit of code
> >would be much better. I'm willing to rip out this bit of code, and
> >replace it with something cleaner and simpler, but this "deprication"
> >is only noise to me.
> I'll add a comment. Briefly it will read:
> ``The deprecated codestream mechanism is entirely redundant. The dcache
> superseeds it, providing a generic mechanism for caching both
> instruction and data values. If the dcache has problems or limitations
> than that, and not this code, needs to be fixed.''
Except we don't _use_ the dcache, normally. And my last attempts to
enable it by default met with a pretty crummy reaction. And the last
time I benchmarked using the dcache I got worse results than without
[And you spelled supersedes incorrectly :)]
> While you might think of marking this as deprecated as noice, as I noted
> to Daniel, it has a very real and direct objective:
> >Been there, tried that. As best I can tell, the only thing that makes
> >someone stop and think, is the word deprecated in the name. Coders don't
> >always read the comments, reviewers can't keep track of everything that is
> >being eliminated :-/
> If I don't do this, I find I get a (lets say) less than favourable
> reception when asking a contributor to not [re]use a mechanism
> identified as deprecated via either a comment or bug report. cf, this
> very code block when cloned into another architecture; or the regcache
> code before I went through and marked much of that as deprecated.
Maybe I just have a short memory, but when has that happened? That
you've pointed out that something was marked deprecated before it was
reused, and gotten a bad reception?
Besides: this is why you should _remove_ them, rather than just
commenting them, if you want them to go away.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer