From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-prs-return-15846-listarch-gdb-prs=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 1919 invoked by alias); 30 May 2014 20:45:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-prs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-prs-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-prs@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: gdb-prs-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 1889 invoked by uid 48); 30 May 2014 20:45:50 -0000
From: "dje at google dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug symtab/17003] New:
 default_iterate_over_objfiles_in_search_order: broken code or broken comment?
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 20:45:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: symtab
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dje at google dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status
 bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter
Message-ID: <bug-17003-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-q2/txt/msg00352.txt.bz2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17003

            Bug ID: 17003
           Summary: default_iterate_over_objfiles_in_search_order: broken
                    code or broken comment?
           Product: gdb
           Version: HEAD
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: symtab
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: dje at google dot com

Which is right, the function comment or the implementation?
If I ignore both and go with what I think the default should be,
current_objfile should be searched first, and then we should iterate over all
objfiles (ignoring current_objfile - already searched).

objfiles.c:

/* The default implementation for the "iterate_over_objfiles_in_search_order"   
   gdbarch method.  It is equivalent to use the ALL_OBJFILES macro,             
   searching the objfiles in the order they are stored internally,              
   ignoring CURRENT_OBJFILE.                                                    

   On most platorms, it should be close enough to doing the best                
   we can without some knowledge specific to the architecture.  */

void
default_iterate_over_objfiles_in_search_order
  (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
   iterate_over_objfiles_in_search_order_cb_ftype *cb,
   void *cb_data, struct objfile *current_objfile)
{
  int stop = 0;
  struct objfile *objfile;

  ALL_OBJFILES (objfile)
    {
       stop = cb (objfile, cb_data);
       if (stop)
         return;
    }
}

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.