From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 120205 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2018 02:52:11 -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 120194 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jul 2018 02:52:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 02:52:10 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBCB21E08D; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:52:07 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1531450328; bh=UO0eAw8+DcYF31MvzoARJ8HzDuNQjNR8cy7KWcORv00=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=YVWwPhvVVX/fhzWuej59eu8Tn8BHbdRfav3RWLZA9PEv0uxD6ncfBhpuYrFwjHcKm yudhh2WWh8+eGTC5tMQvTwiMu2zv5012XlNISZMM9vieKTxSIN5FQyQNmI/9wB9bKF 1druUK5v0sBOsx8W2oW5BYmpYskjeAPMWvUosxHU= Subject: Re: [RFA 10/13] Remove unused declaration from value.c To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180712205208.32646-1-tom@tromey.com> <20180712205208.32646-11-tom@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <97a938d0-3cf4-dc2a-b572-6e55b824cf98@simark.ca> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 02:52:00 -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: <20180712205208.32646-11-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 On 2018-07-12 04:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > This removes an unused declaration from value_fetch_lazy_bitfield, but > leaves the call to check_typedef, because it may be called for effect. Do you know for sure this is necessary (e.g. without this, some test fails), or you are just being cautious? Simon