Re: [rfa] generate symbols associated to namespaces

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 11:06:28AM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:54:29 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 02:58:50PM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> 
> >> +  /* Allocate empty GLOBAL_BLOCK and STATIC_BLOCK. */
> >> +
> >> +  bl = allocate_block (&objfile->symbol_obstack);
> >> +  BLOCK_DICT (bl) = dict_create_linear (&objfile->symbol_obstack,
> >> +					NULL);
> >> +  BLOCKVECTOR_BLOCK (bv, GLOBAL_BLOCK) = bl;
> >> +  bl = allocate_block (&objfile->symbol_obstack);
> >> +  BLOCK_DICT (bl) = dict_create_linear (&objfile->symbol_obstack,
> >> +					NULL);
> >> +  BLOCKVECTOR_BLOCK (bv, STATIC_BLOCK) = bl;
> >> +
> >> +  /* Allocate the possible namespace block; we put it where the first
> >> +     local block will live, though I don't think there's any need to
> >> +     pretend that it's actually a local block (e.g. by setting
> >> +     BLOCK_SUPERBLOCK appropriately).  */
> >> +
> >> +  bl = allocate_block (&objfile->symbol_obstack);
> >> +  BLOCK_DICT (bl) = dict_create_hashed_expandable ();
> >> +  BLOCKVECTOR_BLOCK (bv, FIRST_LOCAL_BLOCK) = bl;
> 
> > Is there any particular reason not to use the global block?  If so
> > might want to comment what it is.
> 
> Yes: we never want these symbols to be found by a normal search of all
> symtabs' global blocks, because we don't trust these symbols.  We only
> want them found as a last resort, once we've looked every place that
> symbols associated to classes should live.  So that's why I stash them
> in a local block.  I'll add a comment to that effect.

OK.  I would have thought that the fake symtab would never have been
searched normally, though - I guess it gets chained into
objfile->symtabs?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer