From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA/dwarf] save nested Ada subprograms as global symbol
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:06:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080130225833.GG12387@adacore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080130204208.GA3659@caradoc.them.org>
> > > A closer analogy to nested procedures may be class methods. Are the
> > > names of functions in packages normally relatively unique? How about
> > > for nested functions? In C++, names within namespaces are relatively
> > > unique, and method names are not ("next", "iterator", etc.).
[...]
> I meant the unqualified names. Are you likely to have a dozen
> different procedures in your program, all containing a nested method
> named "first"?
It's hard to tell. I would guess that nested subprograms are not
different in terms of naming from regular non-nested subprograms.
> Oh. Well, that's much less reason to object then. I thought you were
> putting "first" into the symbol table, but "pck.do_nothing.first" and
> then finding that on searches for "first" bothers me much less.
Ah, yes, I understand now where you are coming from. This is my fault,
I should have been more complete in my first message. Sometimes,
I overlook significant details that are obvious to me, but actually
not obvious to someone not familiar with the GNAT compiler...
> If you want to be able to use the name unqualified, then the global
> symbol table sounds like the right place to put it. I'd like
> namespace members and procedures containing nested functions to be
> hierarchical elements in the symbol table, but that's not how it works
> today.
So is the original patch OK, then?
> I'd suggest we do the same for nested C functions but it would be a
> horrible mess; they don't have conveniently mangled or qualified names.
For purely-C nested functions, doesn't it work already? Actually,
I just gave it a try and I was able to break on my nested procedure.
Given:
int
main (void)
{
void do_nothing (void) {};
do_nothing ();
return 0;
}
I was able to break on "do_nothing" and run to it:
(gdb) b do_nothing
Breakpoint 1 at 0x8048355: file foo.c, line 5.
(gdb) run
Starting program: /[...]/foo
Breakpoint 1, do_nothing () at foo.c:5
5 void do_nothing (void) {};
--
Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-30 22:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-27 18:10 Joel Brobecker
2008-01-29 17:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-01-29 21:45 ` Joel Brobecker
2008-01-29 22:34 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-01-30 20:42 ` Joel Brobecker
2008-01-30 21:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-01-30 23:06 ` Joel Brobecker [this message]
2008-01-30 23:57 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-02-01 22:50 ` Joel Brobecker
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=20080130225833.GG12387@adacore.com \
--to=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/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