From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Giuseppe Scrivano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove various dead assignments and dead increments found by the clang static analyzer Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:46:45 +0200 Message-ID: <87ws3lczmy.fsf@master.homenet> References: <87ab0hepcn.fsf@master.homenet> <871vltefdj.fsf@master.homenet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Sverre Rabbelier X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 26 20:48:12 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MrcJX-0000C6-Jz for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:48:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752267AbZIZSrn (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:47:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752217AbZIZSrm (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:47:42 -0400 Received: from joe.mail.tiscali.it ([213.205.33.54]:35328 "EHLO joe.mail.tiscali.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752184AbZIZSrm (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:47:42 -0400 Received: from master.homenet (84.223.203.227) by joe.mail.tiscali.it (8.0.022) id 49EC55CD047B24DE; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:47:44 +0200 Received: from gscrivano by master.homenet with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MrcIC-0002q4-5Z; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:46:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Sverre Rabbelier's message of "Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:34:22 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hello, Sverre Rabbelier writes: > Then it would probably have been better to say so by at least marking > your patch as RFC and including such a remark in the cover letter, no? > Also, now that this has been pointed out, you shouldn't expect it to > be included until someone either takes your patch and cleans it up (as > in, checks all statements manually), or until you do so yourself. I really had to include a RFC remark. After what Johannes reported, I think there is need only to restore assignments to argc while other ones can be dropped without problems. I'll post a cleaned patch later. Cheers, Giuseppe