From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23140 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2003 05:20:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23024 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2003 05:20:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2003 05:20:08 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9T5K3M16788 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:20:03 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9T5K3622098 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:20:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-2.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.2]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9T5K2ju006426; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:20:03 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9T5Jva04934; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:19:57 -0700 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:20:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031029051957.ZM4933@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Elena Zannoni "target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output" (Oct 28, 12:35pm) References: <16286.43251.476369.374951@localhost.redhat.com> To: Elena Zannoni , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: target_terminal_ours and target_terminal_ours_for_output MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00316.txt.bz2 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