This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Why do functions objfpy_new and pspy_new exist?
- From: Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:11:39 -0700
- Subject: Re: Why do functions objfpy_new and pspy_new exist?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yjt2fvfgr95t dot fsf at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <5423E9C7 dot 3060202 at redhat dot com> <E3798679-04DA-48B8-8E53-5296A54A3528 at dell dot com> <54248505 dot 7030809 at redhat dot com> <CADPb22TKh6s-NN61HHu=mwf99uu6hTQHOH+GEiVeZmg++H58Zw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 9/25/14, 3:07 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
[...]
>
> I know I've mentioned this before, but since the topic has come up again,
> I think GDB could have a formal deprecation process that would allow
> us to remove things we'd like to remove (this is for API-like things
> which are harder to remove than, e.g., outdated ports).
Nominally, the existing process is as described at
https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20Obsoleting-code
We've also done "deprecate in one release, remove in the next", and
added "deprecated_" onto function names and such. Empirically, it
hasn't created the desired urgency - people have been content to keep
calling deprecated_foo for many years after its deprecation. :-)
Stan
stan@codesourcery.com