From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 124879 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2018 01:17:26 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 124856 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jul 2018 01:17:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:287 X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 01:17:24 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8EC01E48F; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 21:17:21 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1531531042; bh=lBOX5BZq/qPyYsm2LdvrBHPHuoz/Zj0rkv3R/AjMDuc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=lOXYMNAoygmLbBdHodpGVcMIIddA13X1PL0eGZrcmbibaAeSOaffRh+DgY3W//o0X K1ObOXwEp4CCKrGF1j2O+cgz3MWpzLIXVzCCBBe45GdhpEgM/Va8WcLyFkw91492Rm zKxEtNeb4Np41rUJW6BO6Y5V/ENCaJ3qMJw6Rxg4= Subject: Re: [RFA 03/13] Use a previously unused variable in bfin-tdep.c To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180712205208.32646-1-tom@tromey.com> <20180712205208.32646-4-tom@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <6da92eed-3b0d-ae25-326a-3b43282c01e5@simark.ca> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 01:17:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180712205208.32646-4-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 On 2018-07-12 04:51 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > This changes bfin_push_dummy_call to use the result of check_typedef. > Calling check_typedef for effect was probably ok as well, but this > seemed a little nicer. LGTM. Simon