Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(11)

Issue 73850043: code review 73850043: net/http: eliminate defined-but-not-used var. (Closed)

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
11 years, 3 months ago by adonovan
Modified:
11 years, 3 months ago
Reviewers:
gobot, rsc, bradfitz
CC:
bradfitz, golang-codereviews, gri, rsc
Visibility:
Public.

Description

net/http: eliminate defined-but-not-used var. gc does not report this as an error, but go/types does. (I suspect that constructing a closure counts as a reference to &all in gc's implementation). This is not a tool bug, since the spec doesn't require implementations to implement this check, but it does illustrate that dialect variations are always a nuisance.

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : diff -r 602aa75d9daf https://code.google.com/p/go/ #

Patch Set 3 : diff -r 602aa75d9daf https://code.google.com/p/go/ #

Patch Set 4 : diff -r 602aa75d9daf https://code.google.com/p/go/ #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+1 line, -3 lines) Patch
M src/pkg/net/http/client_test.go View 1 2 3 1 chunk +1 line, -3 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 7
adonovan
Hello bradfitz@golang.org (cc: golang-codereviews@googlegroups.com, gri@golang.org, rsc@golang.org), I'd like you to review this change to https://code.google.com/p/go/
11 years, 3 months ago (2014-03-11 01:41:37 UTC) #1
rsc
LGTM my apologies
11 years, 3 months ago (2014-03-11 02:00:08 UTC) #2
bradfitz
LGTM but could use := now for err On Mar 10, 2014 6:41 PM, <adonovan@google.com> ...
11 years, 3 months ago (2014-03-11 02:03:07 UTC) #3
adonovan
On 10 March 2014 22:03, Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org> wrote: > LGTM but could use := ...
11 years, 3 months ago (2014-03-11 02:22:52 UTC) #4
adonovan
*** Submitted as https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=226e832f800b *** net/http: eliminate defined-but-not-used var. gc does not report this as ...
11 years, 3 months ago (2014-03-11 02:22:55 UTC) #5
gobot
This CL appears to have broken the darwin-386-cheney builder.
11 years, 3 months ago (2014-03-11 02:28:25 UTC) #6
adonovan
11 years, 3 months ago (2014-03-11 02:32:14 UTC) #7
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2014/03/11 02:28:25, gobot wrote:
> This CL appears to have broken the darwin-386-cheney builder.

"Appears to" being the operative words.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b