dynamic scope from frame, static scope from ???

[Jim Blandy]

Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:
> GDB's slowly pushing the frame through to the procedures that need
> access to the dynamic information.  However, I don't know that we've
> addressed the case where a process needs access to the static
> information?  Should there be dogma (similar to "there is always a
> frame") that covers the static case?
> 
> Off hand I can think of several ways of doing this:
> 
> - create a static-frame (it has no dynamic state) and use that
> - pass the source-and-line or block where needed
> functions would get both sal and a possibly null frame
> - pass some new structure that includes other info such as the
> selected language (if its different to what it should be)?

I think the meaning of a static context depends on the language in
which the user is working.  For C and C++, for example, a static
context needs to include a specific source line, not just a block, so
as to be able to find which macros are in scope.

Internally, at least.  As far as the user interface is concerned, GDB
should try to infer the appropriate language automatically.