Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, vinschen@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb.cp/classes.exp: Don't try to print local variable out of scope
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:27:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040309212736.GA8404@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <404E2B2C.8030201@gnu.org>

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:38:04PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >1 void foo ()
> >  2 {
> >  3   int i = 1;
> >  4   {
> >  5     int i = 2;
> >  6     bar(i);
> >  7   }
> >  8   bar (i);
> >  9 }
> >
> >cv> Is line 7 still in the scope of the inner definition of variable `i'?
> >cv> Which `i' should be printed at that point?
> >
> >My intuition says that the inner "i" is in scope at line 7.
> 
> Yes, the inner "i" should be in scope.  That line, which hasn't yet been 
> executed, will destory the inner block.  I think that is covered by the 
> GCC-O0 rule?

If that's right, it sounds like we should be using the address-in-block
hack to figure out what local variables are in scope for the top
frame.  But that runs the risk of, for instance, moving us back into a
preceeding function.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, vinschen@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] gdb.cp/classes.exp: Don't try to print local variable out of scope
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040309212736.GA8404@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20040319000900.GvHXmhQumuH0grHlN6iBirKuXDtzSLDulMykjs8WYl0@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <404E2B2C.8030201@gnu.org>

On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:38:04PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >1 void foo ()
> >  2 {
> >  3   int i = 1;
> >  4   {
> >  5     int i = 2;
> >  6     bar(i);
> >  7   }
> >  8   bar (i);
> >  9 }
> >
> >cv> Is line 7 still in the scope of the inner definition of variable `i'?
> >cv> Which `i' should be printed at that point?
> >
> >My intuition says that the inner "i" is in scope at line 7.
> 
> Yes, the inner "i" should be in scope.  That line, which hasn't yet been 
> executed, will destory the inner block.  I think that is covered by the 
> GCC-O0 rule?

If that's right, it sounds like we should be using the address-in-block
hack to figure out what local variables are in scope for the top
frame.  But that runs the risk of, for instance, moving us back into a
preceeding function.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-03-09 21:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-03-19  0:09 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-09 16:15 ` Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-19  0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-09 20:38   ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-09 21:27   ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2004-03-09 22:32     ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19  0:09       ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19  0:09       ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-10  0:56         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19  0:09         ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-10  1:51           ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-10  3:05           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19  0:09             ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19  0:09             ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-10  3:23               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-10 22:21               ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-10 22:29                 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-15 18:47                   ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19  0:09                     ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19  0:09                   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19  0:09                 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19  0:09     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19  0:09 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-10  2:06 ` Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-19  0:09 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-09 15:27 ` Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-19  0:09 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-09 15:11 ` Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-09 15:40 ` Corinna Vinschen
2004-03-19  0:09   ` Corinna Vinschen
2004-03-19  0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-09 15:20   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19  0:09 Corinna Vinschen
2004-03-09 13:00 ` Corinna Vinschen
2004-03-19  0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-09 14:17   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19  0:09 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-10 23:58 ` Michael Elizabeth Chastain

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040309212736.GA8404@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@false.org \
    --cc=cagney@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=mec.gnu@mindspring.com \
    --cc=vinschen@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox