Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:07:32PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > > Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:47:01 -0500
> > > From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>
> > > > 
> > > > But that's precisely why we have the patch review and approval
> > > > procedure, right?  Maintainers who approve patches are supposed to
> > > > prevent code that uses deprecated machinery from being added.
>
> > > 
> > > Very true.  Explicit deprecation is a tool for making that part of the 
> > > maintainer and contributor task far easier.  Instead of wasting time 
> > > trying to track and find all the things being eliminated, the 
> > > contributor and reviewer can simply keep an eye out for deprecated in 
> > > their patches
>
> > I'm not convinced that detecting STREQ is harder than detecting
> > DEPRECATED_STREQ.
>
>
> Neither am I... Andrew, how would you feel about a central (in the
> source tree) list of deprecated objects instead?

I see you didn't reply to the attached e-mail.

Andrew

--- Begin Message ---

• From: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
• To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
• Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
• Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:08:54 -0500
• Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses
• Delivery-date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:00:48 -0500
• Envelope-to: cagney@gnu.org
• References: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> <ufzgee29u.fsf@elta.co.il> <3FC234C0.1000500@gnu.org> <20031124165047.GA2227@nevyn.them.org> <3FC25DCF.7060508@gnu.org> <20031124205432.GA18415@nevyn.them.org>

At least one now :) There are a number of other solutions to this. Have you considered making the ARI mail contributors for certain
(low-false-positive) categories? Like, for instance, this one. The
gcc-regression mailing list has several scripts to pull the ChangeLog
entries since the last run and mail victims. It's extremely effective.

I find the GCC script anything but effective. I get spammed everytime I commit something to GCC - a very negative experience for an infrequent GCC committer. I've now been conditioned into ignoring that mail :-(

Contrast that to -Werror (yes ok, it isn't a requirement) and gdb_mbuild.sh. By encouraging their use we make it possible for people to address the problems _before_ they become an issue. That way the contributor and maintainer don't even need to discuss them. For something like the ARI to be mainlined, it would need to be integrated into the build process in a way that didn't leave the user confused (a standard build would have to be 100% warning free - something that at present is impossible to achieve).

enjoy,
Andrew

--- End Message ---