This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: stale fixincludes fixes
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Bruce Korb <bkorb at gnu dot org>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:02:19 +0200
- Subject: Re: stale fixincludes fixes
* Bruce Korb wrote on Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:35:48PM CEST:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > That calls for a cleanup sweep of inclhack.def. ?OK for this followup
> > patch? ?This time tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu only, so I'm driving blind
> > as to whether any of the removed hacks could have fixed a system that is
> > still supported.
>
> If you are sure the code is obsolete, then just remove it. I trust you. :)
> If you have any doubts, just surround it with:
>
> #ifdef OBSOLETE_CODE
> ..........
> #endif /* OBSOLETE_CODE */
I have checked old Solaris and AIX systems and codesearch, and haven't
found any headers that could match, so I've gone ahead and removed the
code now.
* Bruce Korb wrote on Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:26:07PM CEST:
> One of the things that could easily be done is to fiddle the code a bit
> to record which fixes fire and ask the person building GCC to let some
> obscure email address know that a particular fix fired on a particular
> platform, perhaps marking some "obviously in use" fixes with a "don't
> bother" flag. If some fix hasn't been reported in after several years,
> it might be a reasonable candidate for removal. Or, mark the fixes we
> think may be obsolete and emit a message to the GCC builder, "Your
> build required the XXX fix and we're considering obsoleting that fix.
> Please notify xxx@whatever.xxx that you still need this fix."
Yes, that could be a good strategy, too.
Thanks,
Ralf