This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: HP catchpoint code
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: Jim Blandy <jimb at zenia dot red-bean dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 18:24:26 -0500
- Subject: Re: HP catchpoint code
- References: <20020812153334.GA30891@nevyn.them.org> <vt2adnqze5c.fsf@zenia.red-bean.com> <20020813214211.GA9735@nevyn.them.org> <3D598150.1000106@ges.redhat.com> <20021018221617.GA4804@nevyn.them.org> <3DB418F1.2050607@redhat.com> <20021021153319.GA23624@nevyn.them.org>
In summary, I'd rather yank it; mark the bits in HP-specific files as
//OBSOLETE; and go on to support this feature on what seems to be a
more useful and supported platform to GDB's current user and maintainer
base.
How many bits of the HP-specific code work at all?
When someone cuts a branch, a common mistake is to go off and start
doing all sorts of stuff, but never actually finish it. I'm wondering
how much of the code you're looking at falls into that category and can,
as a consequence, simply be yanked.
Does anyone else have an opinion? If the consensus is that I'm out of
line, I guess it's time to go back to an older working tree and start
renaming...
No, but someone did blink :-)
Andrew