[RFA,01/13] Simple unused variable removals

  On 2018-07-12 04:51 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> This patch holds all the straightforward unused variable deletions.

I've looked at this patch and I didn't find anything that looked wrong
to my eyes.  In some cases, such as:



I wondered this was a bug (should that variable really be used), but I
wouldn't know without some quite extensive research...  so all-in-all, LGTM.

Simon
  

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca> writes:

Simon> -      CORE_ADDR size = extract_unsigned_integer (ovly_table + 16*i + 4,
Simon> -						 4, byte_order);

Simon> I wondered this was a bug (should that variable really be used), but I
Simon> wouldn't know without some quite extensive research...  so all-in-all, LGTM.

Yes, this one was on the bubble and I almost put it in its own patch...
I can't recall offhand if there were others like this.

Tom
  

On 07/14/2018 01:40 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca> writes:
> 
> Simon> -      CORE_ADDR size = extract_unsigned_integer (ovly_table + 16*i + 4,
> Simon> -						 4, byte_order);
> 
> Simon> I wondered this was a bug (should that variable really be used), but I
> Simon> wouldn't know without some quite extensive research...  so all-in-all, LGTM.
> 
> Yes, this one was on the bubble and I almost put it in its own patch...
> I can't recall offhand if there were others like this.

I skimmed the patch and it looks good to me to, and, that bit
also gave me pause.  I was wondering whether we should replace
it with a comment, saying that we're skipping 4 bytes which hold
the entry's size.  That might save someone some time in case the size
turns out to be needed.  (I have no idea where the structure being
extracted is documented, for example.)

Thanks,
Pedro Alves
  

>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

Simon> -      CORE_ADDR size = extract_unsigned_integer (ovly_table + 16*i + 4,
Simon> -						 4, byte_order);
>> 
Simon> I wondered this was a bug (should that variable really be used), but I
Simon> wouldn't know without some quite extensive research...  so all-in-all, LGTM.
>> 
>> Yes, this one was on the bubble and I almost put it in its own patch...
>> I can't recall offhand if there were others like this.

Pedro> I skimmed the patch and it looks good to me to, and, that bit
Pedro> also gave me pause.  I was wondering whether we should replace
Pedro> it with a comment, saying that we're skipping 4 bytes which hold
Pedro> the entry's size.  That might save someone some time in case the size
Pedro> turns out to be needed.  (I have no idea where the structure being
Pedro> extracted is documented, for example.)

I've split this into a separate patch and added a comment.

Tom