From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 111165 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2015 14:17:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 111155 invoked by uid 89); 3 Nov 2015 14:17:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.101.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:17:00 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A22F4A; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 06:16:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from e105689-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e105689-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.207.32]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D1FA3F21A; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 06:16:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove unused config/arm/coff.h To: Jeff Law , tbsaunde+gcc@tbsaunde.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <1446550280-1588-1-git-send-email-tbsaunde+gcc@tbsaunde.org> <5638BB60.9020308@redhat.com> From: Richard Earnshaw Message-ID: <5638C1D8.8020704@foss.arm.com> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:17:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5638BB60.9020308@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2 On 03/11/15 13:49, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/03/2015 04:31 AM, tbsaunde+gcc@tbsaunde.org wrote: >> From: Trevor Saunders >> >> Hi, >> >> $subject, nothing refers to this header so we might as well remove it. >> >> tested I can still build on x86_64-linux-gnu, not that I would expect >> anything >> else or that it is particularly relevent, ok? >> >> Trev >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> >> 2015-11-03 Trevor Saunders >> >> * config/arm/coff.h: Remove. > More generally, if we have a header file that's not used, I'd consider > removing it to be obvious-enough to commit without approval. > > We could/should probably do the same with unused functions, with the > only wrinkle being things that are useful for debugging but which are > otherwise unused should be kept around. > I'd go as far as to say that such functions should be commented to that effect. R. > jeff >