[rfa] annotate blocks with C++ namespace information
Elena Zannoni
ezannoni@redhat.com
Tue Apr 15 02:26:00 GMT 2003
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 02:33:03PM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:27:05 -0400, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> said:
> > > David Carlton writes:
> >
> > >> Just for reference, here's a slightly updated version of my namespace
> > >> patch, following Daniel's suggestions. The only real change is that
> > >> it adds a new command "maint cplus first_component" and a new file
> > >> gdb.c++/maint.exp to test it.
> >
> > > Ok, I got around to this finally. It is basically ok, except for the
> > > line between what is c++ and what is symbol table stuff. I think that
> > > more stuff can be pushed into cp-support.c. See below...
> >
> > I have mixed feelings about your comments. My first reaction was the
> > 'using_list' stuff more logically belongs in buildsym.c: it's about
> > building a symtab, after all! So if the only reason to move it to
> > cp-support is to shift the maintenance responsibilities (which is
> > sensible enough, no need for you to look at changes that only affect
> > C++ support), then I'd rather fix the maintenance process: make Daniel
> > a symtab maintainer (he's certainly done enough work on symtabs), or
> > at least allow him to approve C++-specific symtab changes.
> >
> > Having said that, I'm tentatively coming around to your point of view.
> > After all, it's easy enough for me to say that everything related to
> > building symtabs should be in buildsym.c, but if lots of different
> > languages develop their own special needs for the symbol table, then
> > buildsym.c will quickly degenerate into a mess of language-specific
> > special cases. So maybe you're right. And, after all, cp-support.c
> > is a lot smaller than buildsym.c, so it will be a while before it gets
> > too bloated.
> >
> > Daniel, what do you think?
>
> I can see it either way - in symtab or in C++. Does it make sense to
> have cp-namespace.c for this, do you think?
I see it more as building language specific structures, and letting
symtabs have a pointer to those. I think the cp-namespace.c idea is a
good compromise.
elena
>
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list