From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11720 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2003 02:08:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11703 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2003 02:08:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2003 02:08:29 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 195Fs7-0005Na-00; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 21:08:31 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 195Frw-0007xQ-00; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:08:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 02:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Carlton Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfa] annotate blocks with C++ namespace information Message-ID: <20030415020820.GB30534@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Jim Blandy References: <20030311171133.GA3362@nevyn.them.org> <16027.2953.467195.516437@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 02:33:03PM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:27:05 -0400, Elena Zannoni 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