Re: [rfa+6.1]: Fix gcc 3.4 regression in gdb.cp/namespace.exp

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

David Carlton writes:
 > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:25:39 -0800, David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com> said:
 > 
 > > So what's the correct fix here?  I tend to think that the code would
 > > be easier to understand if we only generated symbols while going
 > > through the code in the obvious tree order (calling functions named
 > > process_XXX, ideally), instead of while following various
 > > cross-references (which we would only do via functions named read_XXX,
 > > ideally).  Is that a reasonable hope?  If so, it seems like the
 > > correct fix would be to change process_structure_scope to call
 > > process_die on all of its children, whether or not the current die is
 > > a declaration.  I'll play around with a patch like that - it should be
 > > safe, I hope, since process_structure_scope is only called from
 > > process_die, so we shouldn't be generating symbols twice.
 > 
 > Here's a patch implementing that.  It looks messier than it is - all I
 > did was move the loop over children before the test for whether or not
 > we're a declaration.  I've tested it on mainline with
 > i686-pc-linux-gnu, DWARF-2, and four different GCC versions; no new
 > regressions, and it fixes the regression in question.  Is it okay to
 > commit?  If so, is it also okay for 6.1 (assuming that the tests pass
 > there as well, which I'm about to start checking)?

Fine, yes.

Maybe Daniel should have a look too?

elena