From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-72903-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25766 invoked by alias); 7 May 2010 18:31:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 25758 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2010 18:31:01 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 May 2010 18:30:57 +0000
Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45])	by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6D76006;	Fri,  7 May 2010 11:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138])	by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832DACD902;	Fri,  7 May 2010 11:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BE45C60.1060001@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 18:31:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "tromey@redhat.com" <tromey@redhat.com>
CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] frame-unwind, gnu-v2-abi, cp-support, cp-namespace, trad-frame, tramp-frame.c: remove unused vars.
References: <4BE369A3.9080107@vmware.com> <m3wrvffvzz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3wrvffvzz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00196.txt.bz2

Tom Tromey wrote:
> Michael> -  CORE_ADDR pc = get_frame_pc (this_frame);
> 
> I am not completely sure this is safe.  Maybe get_frame_pc can throw an
> exception.

I thought about that, but if the function call is there
solely because of some side effect it can have, that's
pretty fishy too.

I'm willing to put it back if that's what is thought best...