From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21157 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2004 22:28:46 -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 21002 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2004 22:28:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2004 22:28:46 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1B3N3D-00050T-0m; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:28:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Elena Zannoni Cc: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfa+6.1]: Fix gcc 3.4 regression in gdb.cp/namespace.exp Message-ID: <20040316222842.GB19066@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Elena Zannoni , David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Jim Blandy References: <16471.25753.503491.536866@localhost.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16471.25753.503491.536866@localhost.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00370.txt Message-ID: <20040316222800.vE4ES8Efm2kAE0nhpOwmZ5Da-0t8K1C-PxRh-TloMwM@z> 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 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