Re: location lists revisited

[brender at gemgrp dot zko dot dec dot com (Ron 603-884-2088)]

Michael Eager wrote:
>I believe that the descriptions of variable "global" which you present
>are incorrect.  If you do not use these flawed definitions, then your 
>problem will go away.  If you insist that flawed descriptions are 
>the only ones which you will consider, then there seems to be little 
>to discuss on this matter.

Perhaps you could clarify what the flaw is -- I sure don't see it.

Todd did make clear that he is assuming a relaxation of the prohibition
against a DW_AT_location attribute on an object declaration, as has been
suggested by several people now. Is that the flaw?

If there is an alternative, I don't see that either.

>Dwarf describes scoped languages.  Determining the actual variable
>being referenced in any context is dependent on the scope of the context.
>No heuristics are needed to determine the context of the reference
>and there is no ambiguity in resolving the reference.

Are you suggesting that when stopped at unrelated() that a debugger should
be unable to display variable global because it is not in scope? It certainly
would be an error at compiletime to attempt to reference global from anywhere
in source3.c because there is neither a declaration nor definition visible.

Ron