This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Delete struct inferior_suspend_state
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:33:09 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Delete struct inferior_suspend_state
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yjt2silh73aa dot fsf at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <20140731193050 dot GA7927 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <CADPb22TPw+9eOv2hna==EomvmNNyATTkqUvwyqKLU7V-L=PAEA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140731200529 dot GG14672 at adacore dot com>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> If we're going to keep comments we might as well keep the #if 0'd code
>> (which is fine by me).
>> There's no real difference between the two, and the #if 0'd out code
>> is more descriptive, though I would add a commit (tweak a comment?) so
>> that the next person will more easily know that the #if 0's are ok.
>> IWBN to have examples where #if 0 is at least not a bad thing.
>
> In my experience, #if 0'ed code has been bit-rotting. Better, IMO,
> to just be as descriptive as possible in the code, even if that
> involves naming functions, etc. That way, we can maintain the
> description a little better.
Comments don't necessarily fare much better.
Consider the 23 year old TODO. 1/2 :-)
ref: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-07/msg00832.html