This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Add proper handling for non-local references in nested functions
- From: Pierre-Marie de Rodat <derodat at adacore dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:14:38 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add proper handling for non-local references in nested functions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54F47563 dot 4050103 at adacore dot com> <54FF0D05 dot 70907 at redhat dot com> <550C1170 dot 9070208 at adacore dot com> <55685B60 dot 3000004 at redhat dot com> <55775EB0 dot 4080701 at adacore dot com> <55AF5F7E dot 5000600 at adacore dot com> <CAP9bCMTLPx0TDqDMTT+AWPEjAOv2jVZG+vCCcMt-2u4CBTfJwg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 07/22/2015 04:26 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
One thought that comes to mind when reading the patch is that
you introduce the term "static link", and it doesn't mean what
the casual reader will think it means.
E.g.,
+ This method is designed to work with static links (nested
functions
+ handling). Static links are function properties whose
evaluation return
+ the frame base address for the enclosing frame.
I think we need something less ambiguous / more clear.
Having dived in nested functions, âstatic linkâ is currently wired in my
mind to nested functions. ;-) What do you think it can be confused with?
Statically linked libraries?
One advantage of âstatic linkâ is that itâs the term which the DWARF
specification uses. GCC says âstatic chainâ instead and Iâve read
somewhere âactivation recordâ, although it actually means: the record
pointed to by the static chain.
I liked the one I used because of the DWARF specification vocabulary,
but Iâm open to changing it if itâs confusing.
Thanks in advance for the review!
--
Pierre-Marie de Rodat