Re: Replicated Dwarf [was Re: location lists]

[todd dot allen at ccur dot com (Todd Allen)]

> 
> My impression, and again, I feel I have too little understanding of Ada
> to offer examples, is that there are other ways to describe the structure
> of an Ada program without the problems you describe above.  There are
> similarities in Ada and C++ which may be used to your advantage.
> 

   What sort of similarities?  C++ certainly isn't my area of expertise, but
   I didn't think there was anything like subroutines nested with other
   subroutines, much less separate compilation for the two subroutines.

   Are there other cases where C++ DWARF must re-describe a scope, but does
   so incompletely?  Is that the sort of thing you're talking about here, or
   something else, altogether?

   I'm not completely set against using the scope replication approach to
   describing copies of globals.  I do find it to be wasteful of space.  But
   if that waste can be minimized, then I'd willing to implement it that way.
   It even neatly solves the problem of knowing whether or not *any* local
   copies for a given global exist, so that a walkback search for local
   copies can be avoided, so it has some merit over the DW_TAG_local_copy
   approach.

-- 
Todd Allen
Concurrent Computer Corporation