code review 43500045: runtime: delete proc.p

runtime: delete proc.p
It's entirely outdated today.

[dvyukov, 2014-01-02 15:54:06]

Hello golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com,

I'd like you to review this change to
https://dvyukov%40google.com@code.google.com/p/go/

[bradfitz, 2014-01-02 18:09:47]

LGTM



On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:54 AM, <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:

> Reviewers: golang-codereviews,
>
> Message:
> Hello golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com,
>
> I'd like you to review this change to
> https://dvyukov%40google.com@code.google.com/p/go/
>
>
> Description:
> runtime: delete proc.p
> It's entirely outdated today.
>
> Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/43500045/
>
> Affected files (+0, -526 lines):
>   R src/pkg/runtime/proc.p
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "golang-codereviews" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to golang-codereviews+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

[gobot, 2014-01-04 09:41:45]

R=r@golang.org (assigned by dave@cheney.net)

[r, 2014-01-04 15:32:40]

LGTM
although it would be nice to have a replacement, maintaining it would be a chore
at the current rate of change.

[dvyukov, 2014-01-04 16:27:52]

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 7:32 PM,  <r@golang.org> wrote:
> LGTM
> although it would be nice to have a replacement, maintaining it would be
> a chore at the current rate of change.

Agree that it would be nice. And agree that it would be chore. Also
with any verification system that require special notation, there is
no guarantee that you are verifying what is running in production; and
any existing systems that can verify production code would not
understand packages, goroutine switches, GC, etc...

[r, 2014-01-04 18:51:37]

Every time I've used a formal modeling system, I've found and fixed
bugs in the system being modeled. It may never be perfect but every
new way of looking at a problem, or a design, is an opportunity to
learn.

-rob


On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 7:32 PM,  <r@golang.org> wrote:
>> LGTM
>> although it would be nice to have a replacement, maintaining it would be
>> a chore at the current rate of change.
>
> Agree that it would be nice. And agree that it would be chore. Also
> with any verification system that require special notation, there is
> no guarantee that you are verifying what is running in production; and
> any existing systems that can verify production code would not
> understand packages, goroutine switches, GC, etc...

[dvyukov, 2014-01-21 08:50:00]

*** Submitted as https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=c18b0546f258 ***

runtime: delete proc.p
It's entirely outdated today.

R=golang-codereviews, bradfitz, gobot, r
CC=golang-codereviews
https://codereview.appspot.com/43500045