From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14848 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2009 17:36:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14839 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2009 17:36:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:36:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n74Ha18Q009633; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:36:01 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n74Ha0n4004608; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:36:01 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n74HZxIw023789; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:36:00 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8D0073784EC; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:35:59 -0600 (MDT) To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] Dead variables, remote.c References: <4A73A8DC.8070104@vmware.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4A73A8DC.8070104@vmware.com> (Michael Snyder's message of "Fri\, 31 Jul 2009 19\:30\:52 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Snyder writes: Michael> While poking in remote.c I noticed some unused local variables, Michael> and (with gcc's help) found 28 of them in 16 functions. Michael> Not a huge priority, but should actually make the code easier to Michael> understand... Looks good to me. FWIW, I think a patch to eliminate an unused variable falls into the "obvious" category (barring unusual circumstances). Tom