This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
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: <3DEAAB57.4070609@redhat.com> <86bs3yoxc7.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3E1C878B.2050607@redhat.com>
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:18:19PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>2002-12-01 Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.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
it.
[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.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer