This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] annotate blocks with C++ namespace information
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com,Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:08:20 -0400
- Subject: Re: [rfa] annotate blocks with C++ namespace information
- References: <ro165rd2iiw.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> <20030311171133.GA3362@nevyn.them.org> <ro13cllei8e.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> <16027.2953.467195.516437@localhost.redhat.com> <ro1r884dasw.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
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 at redhat dot 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?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer