[PATCH] dead code in mi-interp

[Nick Roberts]

 > That's not what "no side effects" means - the code literally can't
 > ever have an effect.  It creates a string which nothing uses.  Why
 > keep it?

OK, I hadn't realised that.  Unless the original author (Andrew Cagney?)
explains why it's not needed I would still prefer that it wasn't removed.  It
may be that it just wasn't hooked up because the asynchronous stuff was never
completed.  Once GDB can work asynchronously then it could be removed, if not
needed.  Presumably "no side effects" also means "can do no harm".

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob