From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 120622 invoked by alias); 4 May 2016 00:33:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 120370 invoked by uid 89); 4 May 2016 00:33:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:U*macro, Hx-languages-length:3060, bank, presently X-HELO: paperclip.tbsaunde.org Received: from tbsaunde.org (HELO paperclip.tbsaunde.org) (66.228.47.254) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 May 2016 00:33:24 +0000 Received: from tsaunders-iceball.corp.tor1.mozilla.com (CPE00fc8d3ff2d3-CM00fc8d3ff2d0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.242.1.93]) by paperclip.tbsaunde.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A34E9C0AE; Wed, 4 May 2016 00:33:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 00:33:00 -0000 From: Trevor Saunders To: Pedro Alves Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Trevor Saunders , Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Remove support for "target m32rsdi" and "target mips/pmon/ddb/rockhopper/lsi" Message-ID: <20160503235813.GA4366@tsaunders-iceball.corp.tor1.mozilla.com> References: <1458230389-28233-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <8637rivld3.fsf@gmail.com> <56F13269.8020602@redhat.com> <56FD12FE.1030300@redhat.com> <70b62cd3-436b-2495-dd87-4bebf3de9e87@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <70b62cd3-436b-2495-dd87-4bebf3de9e87@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 07:59:10PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 05/03/2016 03:57 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > On Mon, 2 May 2016, Pedro Alves wrote: > > > >>> NB it looks to me `mips_r3041_reg_names' is now dead. We just *might* > >>> consider rewiring it like `mips_tx39_reg_names', but that would require > >>> defining another BFD machine type and I doubt anybody cares about the > >>> R3041 anymore (cf. the relevant comment you've just removed). So if you > >>> care to remove it too, then I'll appreciate it and a change to do so is > >>> preapproved. > >>> > >>> Given that the variable is static I wonder why it hasn't triggered a > >>> compilation error in the build actually. > >> > >> That's because gdb doesn't use -Wunused presently. > > > > Hmm, I thought it was implied by -Wall. > > Yeah, GDB uses -Wno-usused explicitly. > > > Perhaps we should add it then? > > Yes, agreed. That's what Trevor was aiming for IIUC. > > > Releases are built without -Werror so the end users will be safe either > > way, and it'll make us easier to avoid code pollution. > > *nod* > > >> I never managed to come back to this, and looks like we won't need to. > >> Trevor sent a patch that removes mips_r3041_reg_names among a ton > >> of other unused variables, here: > >> > >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-04/msg00664.html > > > > Great! As it happens, I made a patch to remove `mips_r3041_reg_names' on > > Friday, but didn't get to actually pushing it -- and we had a bank holiday > > yesterday. Go ahead and push yours if you like, git will deal with it just fine I expect. > > I'll give Trevor's change precedence then as a more general clean-up, > > although I'd like to review the MIPS part, as not all variables removed > > from mips-tdep.c are actually "trivially unused" (those would be lone > > declarations, possibly with initialisers). Sure, I'd say they are somewhat trivial compared to other function calls and variables I have yet to send patches for, but I'm not really interested in argueing semantics ;-) > > Especially the heuristic > > unwinder bits look highly suspicious to me, where the variable is updated > > as the analysis proceeds. It could be that these variables can indeed go, > > but perhaps something is missing that should be there. perhaps, my guess is that it was necessary at one time, but isn't anymore. > > > > I'll try to get this done by the end of tomorrow. > > Thanks. > > FWIW, I don't think that this all needs to go in as one big single > patch. We can push in things incrementally, say, push in the obviously > correct bits, and then push in the bits that remove function calls, > which may have desirable side effects as separate patches. > Trevor, if you'd like to proceed like that, feel free to push in > the patch without the check_typedef, mips, and tracepoint trace status > bits as first step. I agree, I'll try to get that done soon, Thanks! Trev > > Thanks, > Pedro Alves >