Sure, no problem.
On May 15, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Ralph Castain <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hmmm...some of this doesn't look right to me. It could be that some of the code changed and stale things didn't get removed, but the snippets of logic in your patch raise alarms in some cases.
> Can you allow a bit more time? I need to apply the patch and actually look at the total code path to understand *why* some of these variables are no longer being used. My fear is that there are cmd line options that may not be working correctly (but rarely get used/tested) because (a) the variable is correct, but (b) somehow the rest of the code is in error.
> On May 15, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> WHAT: Remove a bunch of "set but not used" variables / dead code
>> WHY: Because it's dead code
>> WHERE: All over, but NOT the BTL ALLOC macros (per prior argu^H^H^H^Hdiscussion)
>> WHEN: Tomorrow (16 May 2013), COB
>> More detail:
>> gcc 4.7.x squawks a lot about "set but unused" variables. I took a sweep through and removed a bunch of them -- they're all obviously dead code.
>> I did *not*, however, remove the setting of rc in the various BTL/OOB ALLOC_FRAG macros, per prior disagreements in emails about this. Perhaps someone else will find a compromise for that someday -- this patch is not about fixing those warnings. This patch is only about removing the obvious set-but-really-never-used variables.
>> Short timeout because this is actually pretty trivial, but it does touch other people's code, so I wanted people to see it / get a heads-up before I committed. Patch attached.
>> Jeff Squyres
>> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>> devel mailing list
> devel mailing list
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/