[lldb] Change Breakpoint::AddName return value

[bulbazord]

The return value is completely unused. Let's just return nothing.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb

Author: Alex Langford (bulbazord)

Changes

The return value is completely unused. Let's just return nothing.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71236.diff

2 Files Affected:

• (modified) lldb/include/lldb/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.h (+1-1)
• (modified) lldb/source/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.cpp (+1-2)

diff --git a/lldb/include/lldb/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.h b/lldb/include/lldb/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.h
index f2380157f111dd6..1daaee6c043fc56 100644
--- a/lldb/include/lldb/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.h
+++ b/lldb/include/lldb/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.h
@@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ class Breakpoint : public std::enable_shared_from_this<Breakpoint>,
 
 private: // The target needs to manage adding & removing names.  It will do the
          // checking for name validity as well.
-  bool AddName(llvm::StringRef new_name);
+  void AddName(llvm::StringRef new_name);
 
   void RemoveName(const char *name_to_remove) {
     if (name_to_remove)
diff --git a/lldb/source/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.cpp b/lldb/source/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.cpp
index ff4f195ea30909e..a94498a23a0fb27 100644
--- a/lldb/source/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.cpp
+++ b/lldb/source/Breakpoint/Breakpoint.cpp
@@ -841,9 +841,8 @@ bool Breakpoint::HasResolvedLocations() const {
 
 size_t Breakpoint::GetNumLocations() const { return m_locations.GetSize(); }
 
-bool Breakpoint::AddName(llvm::StringRef new_name) {
+void Breakpoint::AddName(llvm::StringRef new_name) {
   m_name_list.insert(new_name.str());
-  return true;
 }
 
 void Breakpoint::GetDescription(Stream *s, lldb::DescriptionLevel level,

[Michael137]

LGTM

[jimingham]

That makes the comment directly above your change invalid.

[jimingham]

With this change it could no longer check name validity (wasn't anyway, but...)

[jimingham]

Probably should change that to "callers are required to check name validity?" Either that or move whoever is doing the checking here if you want to centralize that.

[bulbazord]

I'll just remove the comment. If we want to make this do error checking, we'll have to shuffle around even more code than this change does right now. I wanted to mostly get rid of this piece of cognitive overhead (why does this return something and why do we drop it on the floor?)

[bulbazord]

@jimingham Does this work for you?