From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 87804 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2018 19:41:25 -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 87778 invoked by uid 89); 5 Jun 2018 19:41:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 19:41:23 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w55JfHV4003102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:41:21 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1B5031E5AF; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:41:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC3F1E4F7; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:41:14 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 19:41:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: Keith Seitz Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 1/6] Remove dead code in end_psymtab In-Reply-To: References: <20180503223621.22544-1-tom@tromey.com> <20180503223621.22544-2-tom@tromey.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Tue, 5 Jun 2018 19:41:17 +0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 On 2018-06-01 14:55, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 05/03/2018 03:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> Normally I would investigate a fix for the code. However, considering >> that the code has been this way a long time (since the first import to >> sourceware) and considering that dbxread.c is not as important any >> more, I think it's safe to just consider that there's no bug. > > I agree. If it's not tested and the comments aren't clear about what > problem it is trying to solve, wait for a new bug report. :-) > > IANAMBLGTM* > > Keith > > * "I am not a maintainer, but looks good to me." Thanks Keith for taking a look. LGTM too. Simon