From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24739 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2004 20:39:50 -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 24732 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2004 20:39:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2004 20:39:49 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 90BC01A448A; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:33:29 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16471.25753.503491.536866@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:39:00 -0000 To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Daniel Jacobowitz , Jim Blandy , Elena Zannoni Subject: Re: [rfa+6.1]: Fix gcc 3.4 regression in gdb.cp/namespace.exp In-Reply-To: References: X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00364.txt Message-ID: <20040316203900.x-4ll1GjG2CBNlACjrg56x7WssLx0L7dyNjTCBRffto@z> David Carlton writes: > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:25:39 -0800, David Carlton 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