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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> 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?

This looks right to me, too - I think I just goofed when I split
read_structure_scope.  Thanks!

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer