Re: [PATCH 11/11] gdb: make iterate_over_symbols return void, rename to for_each_symbol

[Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>]

Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> writes:

> From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
>
> Nothing really uses the return value of iterate_over_symbols and
> language::iterate_over_symbols.  Also, all provided callback always
> return true, iterating on all matching symbols.  Simplify them to not
> return a value and not have the "stop iterating" feature.
>
> Rename to for_each_symbol, just to be consistent with previous patches.
>
> Also rename symbol_found_callback_ftype to
> for_each_symbol_callback_ftype for consistency.
>
> Change-Id: I55ff3162098bb069dc1de1afca10dd9abfc05c34
> ---
>  gdb/ada-lang.c | 26 ++++++++------------------
>  gdb/language.h | 13 ++++---------
>  gdb/linespec.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  gdb/symtab.c   | 23 +++++++++--------------
>  gdb/symtab.h   | 22 +++++++---------------
>  5 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)
>

> @@ -5665,7 +5660,7 @@ ada_add_all_symbols (std::vector<struct block_symbol> &result,
>        else
>  	{
>  	  /* In the !full_search case we're are being called by
> -	     iterate_over_symbols, and we don't want to search
> +	     for_each_symbol, and we don't want to search

As you're touching this comment anyway, could you fix the first line
please, the 'are' is not necessary:

  In the !full_search case we're being called by ...

> @@ -2806,26 +2806,18 @@ using find_symtab_callback_ftype = std::function<bool (symtab *)>;
>  std::vector<const linetable_entry *> find_linetable_entries_for_symtab_line
>      (struct symtab *symtab, int line, const linetable_entry **best_entry);
>  
> -/* Prototype for callbacks for LA_ITERATE_OVER_SYMBOLS.  The callback
> -   is called once per matching symbol SYM.  The callback should return
> -   true to indicate that LA_ITERATE_OVER_SYMBOLS should continue
> -   iterating, or false to indicate that the iteration should end.  */

And again, I complained about this in the previous patch review, but
you've now removed it.  So again, apologies.

Approved-By: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>

Thanks,
Andrew