Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Remove support for "target m32rsdi" and "target mips/pmon/ddb/rockhopper/lsi"

Trevor Saunders
2016-05-04T00:33:38Z

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
>