Re: FYI: fix PR 9708

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at codesourcery dot com>]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 05:25:05PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> +      attr = dwarf2_attr (die, DW_AT_external, cu);
> +      if (attr == NULL && die->parent->tag != DW_TAG_namespace)
> +	return 0;
> +      /* A variable in a lexical block of some kind does not need a
> +	 namespace, even though in C++ such variables may be external
> +	 and have a mangled name.  */
> +      if (die->parent->tag ==  DW_TAG_lexical_block
> +	  || die->parent->tag ==  DW_TAG_try_block
> +	  || die->parent->tag ==  DW_TAG_catch_block)
> +	return 0;
> +      return 1;

Why is this:

int f()
{
  static int x;
  ...
}

Different from this:

int f()
{
  if (foo)
    {
      static int x;
      ...
    }
}

Now one of those is going to get a namespace and the other isn't.
I'd have thought we would call them both f()::x - although clearly
that's not sufficient to uniquely identify them.  Should they
both be ! die_needs_namespace?

> +
> +  long method ()
> +  {
> +    static bool svar = true;
> +    return key2;
> +  }

Looking at your test case, I guess the answer is that you're relying on
GCC's extra DW_TAG_lexical_block emitted for all C++ functions; this
is not a DWARF requirement and other compilers omit it.

I'm sure I originally fixed some bug by giving these things the
physname of 'x'... but probably, whatever it was is also fixed by your
change to use list_in_scope.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery