From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 84900 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2019 18:09:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 84886 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jan 2019 18:09:49 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=interest X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 18:09:48 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7D36C074F0D; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 18:09:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005F860924; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 18:09:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Remove some ALL_* iteration macros To: Tom Tromey References: <20181125165439.13773-1-tom@tromey.com> <87muo8peu8.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 18:09:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87muo8peu8.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2 On 01/10/2019 06:06 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > >>> There are still a few more such macros that could be converted. And, >>> I think inf_threads_iterator could be converted to use next_iterator. >>> I can do some of this if there's interest. > > Pedro> If it's a natural fit, then I think it'd be nice. Is there a downside? > > I don't think there is one. > What do you think of this? Looks good, thanks! Pedro Alves