From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49073 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2018 18:04:46 -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 49063 invoked by uid 89); 17 Aug 2018 18:04:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:04:44 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CE53FCF9; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:04:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from theo.uglyboxes.com (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4526017B9D; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:04:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] Use block_symbol_d in linespec APIs To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180810232534.481-1-keiths@redhat.com> <20180810232534.481-8-keiths@redhat.com> <87h8k1t03a.fsf@tromey.com> From: Keith Seitz Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87h8k1t03a.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-08/txt/msg00431.txt.bz2 On 08/11/2018 08:05 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: > > Keith> This patch changes the linespec.c APIs to use block_symbol instead of just > Keith> a symbol. lookup_symbol et al already return block_symbol's. > > Thanks again for the patches. > > The subject of this patch mentions block_symbol_d but the patch itself > is just using block_symbol. Bah. Yeah, that's just an old patch name. I've fixed that locally. Thank you for the review. Keith