From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5352 invoked by alias); 2 May 2012 06:17:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 5337 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2012 06:17:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (HELO shell4.bayarea.net) (209.128.82.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 May 2012 06:17:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 18197 invoked from network); 1 May 2012 23:17:19 -0700 Received: from c-76-102-3-160.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (HELO redwood.eagercon.com) (76.102.3.160) by shell4.bayarea.net with SMTP; 1 May 2012 23:17:18 -0700 Message-ID: <4FA0D16E.2090308@eagerm.com> Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 06:17:00 -0000 From: Michael Eager User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergio Durigan Junior CC: Pedro Alves , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Clean up unused variables (and prepare for `-Wunused-variable' flag) References: <4F968B4D.3050209@redhat.com> <87wr55do66.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F96E79C.6030208@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On 05/01/2012 10:30 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > On Tuesday, April 24 2012, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> On 04/24/2012 06:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> >>>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: >>> >>> Pedro> There's no need to commit all this in one go. Once you split, >>> Pedro> some of the resulting patches will be dead obvious, and will end up >>> Pedro> reviewed (if even necessary) and checked in quickly, and thus you end up >>> Pedro> making progress faster that way. >>> >>> It seems to me that a variable that is declared but not initialized and >>> not used is always going to be obviously dead. I'd be comfortable with >>> pre-approving all such removals; leaving review for the patches to the >>> generators and initialized variables. >> >> >> Yes, that seems like a good cut. > > Ok, sorry for taking so long to respond, this patch is huge and I was > doing something else... > > Well, here's the "obvious" patch that I came up with. It contains only > declarations of variables, not assignments to them. > > I know it's "obvious", but I prefer to ask than to apologize, so: is it > OK to apply? > > Of course, if you really want some rationale to the changes below, I > will need to dive into the code and see why those variables are not > used. > > OK to apply? OK (obvious) for Microblaze. -- Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077