[review] infcall: remove unused parameter in 'value_arg_coerce'
Commit Message
Tankut Baris Aktemur has uploaded a new change for review.
Change URL: https://gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io/r/c/binutils-gdb/+/140
......................................................................
infcall: remove unused parameter in 'value_arg_coerce'
Remove the unused SP parameter from the auxiliary function
'value_arg_coerce'.
gdb/ChangeLog:
2019-MM-DD Tankut Baris Aktemur <tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com>
* infcall.c (value_arg_coerce): Remove an unused parameter.
(call_function_by_hand_dummy): Update the call to
'value_arg_coerce'.
Change-Id: If324a1dda3fa5d4c145790b92bd3f656c00296f4
---
M gdb/infcall.c
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Comments
Tom Tromey has posted comments on this change.
Change URL: https://gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io/r/c/binutils-gdb/+/140
......................................................................
Patch Set 1: Code-Review+2
Thank you for the patch. This is ok.
Tankut Baris Aktemur has posted comments on this change.
Change URL: https://gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io/r/c/binutils-gdb/+/140
......................................................................
Patch Set 1:
> Patch Set 1: Code-Review+2
>
> Thank you for the patch. This is ok.
Thank you. This is a patch in a series, but it does not depend on other patches; so it can be applied first. Is it OK to merge it without other patches receiving an OK? Is there a concrete about this?
Also, I don't have write access to the repository. Would you be able to apply this change, or may I be granted write access?
Tom Tromey has posted comments on this change.
Change URL: https://gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io/r/c/binutils-gdb/+/140
......................................................................
Patch Set 2:
> Thank you. This is a patch in a series, but it does not depend on other patches; so it can be applied first. Is it OK to merge it without other patches receiving an OK? Is there a concrete about this?
I think it depends on the patch.
My view of the rule is that if a patch is desirable for its own sake, then it
can go in immediately. On the other hand, if a patch is only useful in
conjunction with some other patch, then it should wait.
> Also, I don't have write access to the repository. Would you be able to apply this change, or may I be granted write access?
Please contact me off-list and we can get you set up with write-after-commit
access (assuming your copyright paperwork is in order). The rule in gdb is that
you must have one approved patch to get access.
@@ -145,13 +145,11 @@
for arguments to be passed to C, Ada or Fortran functions.
If PARAM_TYPE is non-NULL, it is the expected parameter type.
- IS_PROTOTYPED is non-zero if the function declaration is prototyped.
- SP is the stack pointer were additional data can be pushed (updating
- its value as needed). */
+ IS_PROTOTYPED is non-zero if the function declaration is prototyped. */
static struct value *
value_arg_coerce (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct value *arg,
- struct type *param_type, int is_prototyped, CORE_ADDR *sp)
+ struct type *param_type, int is_prototyped)
{
const struct builtin_type *builtin = builtin_type (gdbarch);
struct type *arg_type = check_typedef (value_type (arg));
@@ -1020,7 +1018,7 @@
param_type = NULL;
args[i] = value_arg_coerce (gdbarch, args[i],
- param_type, prototyped, &sp);
+ param_type, prototyped);
if (param_type != NULL
&& !(language_pass_by_reference (param_type).trivially_copyable))