PATCH: gdb/709, C++ static members

[David Carlton]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:40:26 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:

> David, your earlier patch:
>         * values.c (value_static_field): Treat an unresolved location the
>         same as a nonexistent symbol.  Fix PR gdb/635.

> pointed me in the right direction for this fix.  As you may have
> pointed out at the time, read_var_value does basically the same
> thing your fix does in that case.  It turns out that there's some
> other cases - this particular one was LOC_CONST_BYTES - where
> read_var_value does the right thing and value_static_field doesn't.
> So I just had value_static_field call read_var_value, which fixes
> your testcase and also a new one I'll post later for gdb/709.

Interesting.  I definitely want to think more about whose job it
should be to handle LOC_UNRESOLVED - it seems plausible that
LOC_UNRESOLVED symbols should never be allowed to escape from
lookup_symbol - but now it seems that I have more location classes to
consider.  Hmm.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu