Re: [libvirt] Dead code vs. XXX comment: remove or not?

2009-09-04 Thread Daniel Veillard
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 04:52:07PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 06:28:13PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> clang reported that this assignment to type is a dead store, > >> since type is never used after this point. > >> > >> This is xm_internal

Re: [libvirt] Dead code vs. XXX comment: remove or not?

2009-09-04 Thread Jim Meyering
Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 06:28:13PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: >> clang reported that this assignment to type is a dead store, >> since type is never used after this point. >> >> This is xm_internal.c, line 1074: >> >> /* XXX Forcing to pretend its a bridge */ >

Re: [libvirt] Dead code vs. XXX comment: remove or not?

2009-09-04 Thread Daniel Veillard
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 06:28:13PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > clang reported that this assignment to type is a dead store, > since type is never used after this point. > > This is xm_internal.c, line 1074: > > /* XXX Forcing to pretend its a bridge */ > if (type == -1) {

[libvirt] Dead code vs. XXX comment: remove or not?

2009-09-03 Thread Jim Meyering
clang reported that this assignment to type is a dead store, since type is never used after this point. This is xm_internal.c, line 1074: /* XXX Forcing to pretend its a bridge */ if (type == -1) { type = 1; } Normally I'd just remove the whole