RFA: Remove unused synchronous code

Fernando Nasser fnasser@redhat.com
Tue Mar 20 12:38:00 GMT 2001


Elena Zannoni wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

I would like to have a decision to remove it right after the branch, as
we remove the pre-ui-out code.  We have already seem a few instances of
fixes/changes being applied to only one version of the code (this on the
ui-out/non-ui-out case -- the non-async is probably stale as async has
been the default for so long)..

Fernando


> 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?

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9



More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list