[PATCH] dead code in mi-interp
Nick Roberts
nickrob@snap.net.nz
Fri Aug 10 04:00:00 GMT 2007
> > 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".
>
> Well, it can always be recovered from the CVS repository if it is
> needed. Personally I'd rathern not have dead code in there just
> because it doesn't do any harm (unles it also has some benefit).
You would only think of recovering it if you already knew it was there. I've
just explained what I think is the benefit: they provide possible clues about
an asynchronous implementation. This specific change is too small to worry
about but collectively I think you're erasing the past. Maybe the code should
read:
...
struct gdb_exception e = interp_exec (interp_to_use, buff);
^^^^
Note that with synchronous execution you currently get:
(gdb) run &
Asynchronous execution not supported on this target.
(gdb)
--
Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list