Re: [rfa] annotate blocks with C++ namespace information

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > 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@redhat.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?

I see it more as building language specific structures, and letting
symtabs have a pointer to those. I think the cp-namespace.c idea is a
good compromise.

elena


 > 
 > 
 > -- 
 > Daniel Jacobowitz
 > MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer