[rfa] set processing_current_prefix properly (PR gdb/1520)
Elena Zannoni
ezannoni@redhat.com
Fri Jan 23 22:28:00 GMT 2004
David Carlton writes:
> This is a fix for PR gdb/1520, a namespace problem with GCC 3.4. The
> problem was that, if we have this situation:
>
> namespace N {
> void foo() { }
> }
>
> then the compiler I had been using generated dies as following in its
> DWARF 2 output:
>
> 1: DW_TAG_namespace:
>
> 2: DW_TAG_subprogram:
>
> // Definition of N::foo
>
> whereas GCC head does:
>
> 1: DW_TAG_namespace:
>
> 2: DW_TAG_subprogram:
>
> // Declaration for N::foo
>
> 3: DW_TAG_subprogram:
>
> DW_AT_specification: reference to die #2
>
> // Definition of N::foo.
>
>
> So I've added code to notice if a die representing a function's
> definition has a specification located elsewhere; if so, it looks at
> that specification to discover the current enclosing class/namespace.
>
Can you add some of the above comments before the new call to check
for the specification?
> (Probably there are other places where we need to do this; hopefully,
> after a bit more experience, we'll find a less ad-hoc way of handling
> this issue.)
>
> It also fixes an inconsistency in my last patch - I had tried to
> maintain the invariant that processing_current_prefix was always
> non-NULL (i.e. was an actual string, albeit possibly an empty one),
> but I was using determine_prefix in ways that violated that invariant.
>
So the only function that one should call in theory should be
determine_prefix, while possibly_determine_prefix is only there as a
worker function? Maybe this should be reflected in the names a bit
more explicitly. Like determine_prefix_worker or something like that
for the 'internal' one. I cannot think of a better term right now.
> Tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu, DWARF 2, with GCC 3.2, GCC 3.2 +
> DW_TAG_namespace patch, GCC 2.95.3, and GCC head. No regressions;
> fixes lots of FAILs in gdb.cp/namespace.exp with GCC head. (From now
> on, I'll probably stop testing with my patched GCC 3.2 and switch to
> using a GCC snapshot generating DW_TAG_namespace, so I don't miss
> problems like this.)
>
> Okay to commit?
>
ok, modulus those 2 nits.
elena
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list