From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id n/JNIrvdr2CzQwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:58:19 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 861AC1F11C; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:58:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2D0F1E01F for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABC33870877; Thu, 27 May 2021 17:58:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5ABC33870877 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1622138298; bh=2wi2xaC71Ga42XSJqDjuTc0WyjIk1N7dmKcGU+QzofE=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=apleprglUsq1FhT4GoRMtkCIoIjYbgbTrIGKYlu0AD3XaWSBXlhxS288esNtyYqUk wsgF2nmnt2kpT/+wI1rBS09wmG15YK0VR8tN6M5DLxuNxVIsjCYG7MZubAmx9IJOhG bN1MQkiA0IOD2UoIFR3w7G5pREHRK2uEsqpdV9dk= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A6943857C77 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 17:58:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 7A6943857C77 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 14RHwA8f004226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 May 2021 13:58:15 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 14RHwA8f004226 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77C951E01F; Thu, 27 May 2021 13:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] gdb: add all_breakpoints_safe function To: Tom Tromey , Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches References: <20210527153558.3016335-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <20210527153558.3016335-3-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> <87h7iot6zd.fsf@tromey.com> Message-ID: <19491c20-8fc5-51c3-ca1e-8423289682f3@polymtl.ca> Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 13:58:10 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87h7iot6zd.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 27 May 2021 17:58:10 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-05-27 1:35 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches writes: > > Simon> @@ -3143,9 +3154,7 @@ remove_breakpoints (void) > Simon> static void > Simon> remove_threaded_breakpoints (struct thread_info *tp, int silent) > Simon> { > Simon> - struct breakpoint *b, *b_tmp; > Simon> - > Simon> - ALL_BREAKPOINTS_SAFE (b, b_tmp) > Simon> + for (breakpoint *b : all_breakpoints ()) > Simon> { > Simon> if (b->thread == tp->global_num && user_breakpoint_p (b)) > Simon> { > > I had to go look, but this one is ok to convert to the non-safe > iterator, as it doesn't modify the collection in the loop. I don't think it was intentional to use all_breakpoints and not all_breakpoints_safe here. I'm leaning towards changing it back to all_breakpoints_safe, because it's not the goal of this patch to change the behavior. Simon