[PATCH] dead code in mi-interp

[Bob Rossi]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:00:18PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > > 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.

Even if that was true, the code should be commented out. It really is a
bad thing to have code in the program that is meaningless.

Bob Rossi