From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 79280 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2018 14:16:26 -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 79176 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jul 2018 14:16:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=expedite, unusual X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:16:19 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 321177262D; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:16:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B402026D65; Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:16:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFA 11/13] Remove unused variables from gdbserver To: Simon Marchi , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180712205208.32646-1-tom@tromey.com> <20180712205208.32646-12-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <6939e165-bdb7-9d5b-d537-c235ec3d5b41@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:16:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00481.txt.bz2 On 07/14/2018 03:47 AM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-07-12 04:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> This removes a few unused variables from gdbserver. >> >> The x86-tdesc.h change is a bit unusual for this series. This file >> was not defining the multiple-include guard symbol, so I've added that >> here. Also, it is hard to determine when i386_expedite_regs will be >> needed, so this patch simply marks it ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED. > > That sounds reasonable to me, LGTM. To me too, but I'd suggest adding a comment, something around: /* The "expedite" registers for x86 targets. Since whether the variable is used depends on host/configuration, we mark it ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED to keep it simple here. */ Thanks, Pedro Alves