This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [ob] remote.c, eliminate unused variables
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 14:14:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: [ob] remote.c, eliminate unused variables
- References: <4BE1D93F.8000309@vmware.com> <201005052151.19745.pedro@codesourcery.com>
Pedro Alves wrote:
On Wednesday 05 May 2010 21:46:55, Michael Snyder wrote:
2010-05-05 Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
* remote.c (remote_threads_info): Delete unused variable.
(process_stop_reply): Delete unused variable.
(remote_get_trace_status): Delete unused variables.
Index: remote.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/remote.c,v
retrieving revision 1.405
diff -u -p -r1.405 remote.c
--- remote.c 5 May 2010 15:05:57 -0000 1.405
+++ remote.c 5 May 2010 20:43:46 -0000
@@ -2512,8 +2512,8 @@ remote_threads_info (struct target_ops *
{
struct gdb_xml_parser *parser;
struct threads_parsing_context context;
- struct cleanup *back_to = make_cleanup (null_cleanup, NULL);
+ make_cleanup (null_cleanup, NULL);
Are you making sure (in all your patches) that the reason the
variables are unused isn't itself a bug?
Can't guarantee it, no.
I'm making sure the semantics isn't changed, but I can't always
be sure that the original semantics was right.
> In this case, creating a
null_cleanup and not storing a pointer anywhere is
highly suspicious...
Well, then it was wrong when I got there. The variable that
it was stored to was not used, but shadowed an outer scope variable
of the same name, which was used.
Maybe it should have stored it without declaring it?
I don't know... what do you think?