RFA: Remove unused synchronous code
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)..
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> > > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:30:05 -0500
> > > From: Fernando Nasser <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >
> > > 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?
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: email@example.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
More information about the Gdb-patches