This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
ping Re: [PATCH] dead code in mi-interp
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:00:18PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>>> > > It may be that it just wasn't hooked up because the asynchronous
>>> stuff was
>>> > > never completed. Once GDB can work asynchronously then it could
>>> be
>>> > > removed, if not needed. Presumably "no side effects" also means
>>> "can do
>>> > > no harm".
>>> >
>>> > Well, it can always be recovered from the CVS repository if it is
>>> > needed. Personally I'd rathern not have dead code in there just
>>> > because it doesn't do any harm (unles it also has some benefit).
>>>
>>> You would only think of recovering it if you already knew it was there.
>>> I've
>>> just explained what I think is the benefit: they provide possible clues
>>> about
>>> an asynchronous implementation.
>>
>> Even if that was true, the code should be commented out. It really is a
>> bad thing to have code in the program that is meaningless.
>
> And as I recall, the precident is that if you #if 0 something out,
> you remove it.
So it seems like three people favor removing it, and one person opposes.
Can we reach a resolution?