Re: PR gdb/856

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

On Monday 29 September 2008 17:57:12, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> :REVIEWMAIL:
> 
> > The PR suggests that parse_exp_1 ought to take a sal instead, so this
> > is what I've implemented.  I changed any caller with access to a
> > relevant sal or PC to use that; otherwise I changed the code to use
> > either a sal constructed from the block's location, or an empty sal.
> 
> I am not sure about changing the block argument into a sal, and would
> argue that changing it into a PC would be slightly better.  Indeed,
> apart from the macro-scoping that uses a SAL, all the parse routines
> only really need a PC. Using a SAL would force some of the callers
> that don't already have one at hand to compute it.
> 
> A nice corolary is that it would simplify your patch quite a bit
> by getting rid of the need to: replace expression_context_pc by
> expression_context_sal; and define a new function empty_sal.
> 
> Thoughts? Andrew Cagney and Jim Blandy both thought using a SAL
> would be a good idea, so the SAL idea does have some weight, but...
> 

Hmmm, this rings a bell about a patch I had forgotten:
 http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-05/msg00146.html

Daniel's answer is here, but I never got back to it:
 http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-06/msg00036.html

Just pointing it out to perhaps save someone some time.  I haven't
looked at Tom's patch.  :-/

-- 
Pedro Alves