Re: [PATCH] dead code in mi-interp

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

 > > 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