From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11850 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2020 22:31:57 -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 11842 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2020 22:31:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=wow, Pedro's, pedros, pedro's X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:31:55 +0000 Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 778A41E4A4; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:31:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Remove some uses of iterate_over_inferiors To: Tom Tromey , Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" References: <20200115191222.28208-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <87r1zzs8qz.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:46:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r1zzs8qz.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2020-01/txt/msg00470.txt.bz2 On 2020-01-16 10:48 a.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi writes: > > Simon> Today, it's very easy to iterate over inferiors using a range-based for > Simon> loop combined with all_inferiors. I think it gives simpler and easier > Simon> to understand code than iterate_over_inferiors, which uses a void > Simon> pointer to pass data from the caller. I noticed that there were very > Simon> few uses of iterate_over_inferiors left, so I think we could convert > Simon> them to range-based for loop and get rid of it. > > I sent some patches like this a while back, but never got around to > finishing the series, so I never checked them in. > > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00381.html > > These all look fine to me and I think you should push them. > > You wrote one patch I didn't (and I think you did more in mi-main.c > too?), and I wrote one you didn't; I'll resurrect that one and push it > once yours are in: > > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00383.html > > Tom > Wow, I had completely forgotten about it! Your patch for target.c is no longer needed, that call has been removed by Pedro's multi-target patch. I can merge my series. I'll just wait for a response from Baris on my new version of patch #2. Simon