This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc/rfa] accept DW_TAG_namespace and friends, possibly on 5.3
- From: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>, Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- Date: 22 Oct 2002 15:32:55 -0700
- Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa] accept DW_TAG_namespace and friends, possibly on 5.3
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210221726360.14211-100000@dberlin.org>
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:09:48 -0400 (EDT), Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> said:
> Now I remember why i didn't do it in the first place. Using decl's
> aren't common to the tree structure (USING_DECL and USING_STMT are
> in cp/cp-tree.def).
> We also never end up walking the statement tree, and there are no
> debug hooks for handling each statement anyway (inlined subroutines
> get handled without needing to do this), so it's a loss. Thus,
> we'll never see a USING_STMT or USING_DECL.
> In other words, this is gonna be complicated and i don't know if it'll be
> accepted, but we'll see.
> I can make the DW_TAG_imported_* appear and appear in the right order, but
> not necessarily in the right context.
That's too bad. Is it just the ones that are in block scope that
cause problems, or do the ones in namespace scope other than the
global namespace also get dumped into the global namespace instead?
Either way, probably having them in the wrong scope would probably be
better for users than not having them at all. (Though I'm not an
experienced enough C++ programmer to know for sure how confusing that
would be.) But it's definitely suboptimal.
David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu