Re: [ob] remote.c, eliminate unused variables

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

On Wednesday 05 May 2010 23:22:20, Michael Snyder wrote:
> >> Can't guarantee it, no.
> >> I'm making sure the semantics isn't changed, but I can't always
> >> be sure that the original semantics was right.
> > 
> > Well, then I'll ask please, don't "fix" more things like this,
> > and surely don't call it obvious.  You're removing a warning for
> > the sake of it. 
> 
> No, I'm attempting to make the code easier to understand by
> removing dead code and variables.  Since this warning is
> turned off, I'm not even reducing the number of warnings.

You're hiding the bug for whoever wants to catch these
bugs by enabling the warning in its local tree.  That's what
I mean: you must be enabling the warning explicitly to see
these; if one doesn't want to check if the warnings are
pointing at something wrong, then one just shouldn't enable
the warning in the first place.

> > A warning is useful as a hint at something 
> > wrong with the code; there may be something genuinely wrong
> > with it.  Removing it blindly removes the useful hint. 
> 
> There's no hint if the warning is turned off.  If I hadn't
> touched it and you hadn't reviewed my change, it would have
> remained undiscovered indefinitely.

I'll see it the same way you must be seeing it.  By
enabling the warning on my local build.

> So let's fix it, shall we?  I'll post a separate patch for you to review.

To be clear, I'm very much not interested in reviewing these
kind of patches.  That would mean doing about the same work
the person writing the patch is already doing.  What I'm intersted
in, is making sure that whenever these patches go in, it was made sure
the variables weren't being unused because we forgot to use
them, instead of just deleting them.  If there's any doubt
that's the case, then the patch isn't obvious, and it should
be posted for comments.

> > If you
> > want to be bothered to look at the code to see if there's
> > something else genuinely wrong, then please, don't change it.
> 
> That's not fair, I did "bother" to look at the code.
> One got by me, that's all.  Thanks for catching it.

Okay, thanks.  I misunderstood perhaps, your reply seemed
to imply you didn't ("Are you making sure" -> "Can't guarantee it, no").

-- 
Pedro Alves