* target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output
@ 2003-10-28 17:35 Elena Zannoni
2003-10-29 5:20 ` Kevin Buettner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Elena Zannoni @ 2003-10-28 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
I was looking at Jeff's patch, and noticed that we have two target
methods, called to_target_terminal_ours and
to_target_terminal_ours_for_output. We then have two functions
target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output (in inflow.c)
which behave exaclty the same (look at the parameter of
terminal_ours_1 not being used at all).
I cannot find any target that sets these pair of methods differently,
i.e. there is no difference between the two, ever.
Should one of the two be deleted? At some point the two functions in
inflow.c used to differ, but in 1993 the difference was deleted,
i.e. the parameter of terminal_ours_1 stopped being used.
Seems this is something that should be cleaned up.
elena
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output
2003-10-28 17:35 target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output Elena Zannoni
@ 2003-10-29 5:20 ` Kevin Buettner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Buettner @ 2003-10-29 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elena Zannoni, gdb
On Oct 28, 12:35pm, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> I was looking at Jeff's patch, and noticed that we have two target
> methods, called to_target_terminal_ours and
> to_target_terminal_ours_for_output. We then have two functions
> target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output (in inflow.c)
> which behave exaclty the same (look at the parameter of
> terminal_ours_1 not being used at all).
>
> I cannot find any target that sets these pair of methods differently,
> i.e. there is no difference between the two, ever.
>
> Should one of the two be deleted? At some point the two functions in
> inflow.c used to differ, but in 1993 the difference was deleted,
> i.e. the parameter of terminal_ours_1 stopped being used.
> Seems this is something that should be cleaned up.
I agree.
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-10-29 5:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-10-28 17:35 target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output Elena Zannoni
2003-10-29 5:20 ` Kevin Buettner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).