Re: RFA: Remove unused synchronous code

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at cygnus dot com>]

Hi, I am going through a list of pending e-mails. 
(yes, I have been out of the loop for a while.)

Eli has a point.
I would like to close this issue and leave things as they are
for the 5.1 release. 
We should revisit this after 5.1 is out/branched.

OK?
Andrew?

Thanks
Elena 


Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:30:05 -0500
 > > From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>
 > > 
 > > The new event loop has been the default since 1999-06-23.  This is
 > > almost 1 1/2 yrs.
 > 
 > I don't think it's correct to measure time since the introduction of
 > the feature into the CVS.  I think we need to measure since the first
 > official release which made it the default, since that's when the
 > users really see it.
 > 
 > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that GDB 5.0 was the first
 > official release that used the event loop as the default.  GDB 5.0 was
 > released in May 2000, which is only 6 months ago.
 > 
 > In addition, DJGPP users only got a precompiled binary a few weeks
 > ago (my fault), so they only now begin using it en masse.
 > 
 > I think that removing the fallback after a single release is a too
 > short notice.  I think we should keep it for at least one more
 > version.  Please keep in mind that the async code is modeled on Unix
 > and GNU/Linux systems; other platforms are using emulations of
 > `select' and related facilities, and the quality of those emulations
 > might vary...
 > 
 > > It happens that the provisions for fall-back (run synchronously) are
 > > getting in the way, making the code illegible
 > 
 > Perhaps we could discuss the specific problems with retaining the old
 > code, and find interim solutions for them that won't require excessive
 > labor.
 > 
 > > and requiring
 > > duplicate efforts (you should still make sure that the old way works
 > > -- have you tested with --noasync after applying your patches?).
 > 
 > Perhaps the test suite should be run with --noasync as well as without
 > it?