From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8613 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2015 15:14:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 8604 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jul 2015 15:14:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:14:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F77B28B32EF; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:14:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N5KrY5IHwCoK; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:14:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.10.1.112] (cacatoes.act-europe.fr [10.10.1.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AD5A28B32ED; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:14:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add proper handling for non-local references in nested functions To: Doug Evans References: <54F47563.4050103@adacore.com> <54FF0D05.70907@redhat.com> <550C1170.9070208@adacore.com> <55685B60.3000004@redhat.com> <55775EB0.4080701@adacore.com> <55AF5F7E.5000600@adacore.com> Cc: Pedro Alves , GDB Patches From: Pierre-Marie de Rodat Message-ID: <55AFB35E.3030608@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 15:14:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00614.txt.bz2 On 07/22/2015 04:26 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > One thought that comes to mind when reading the patch is that > you introduce the term "static link", and it doesn't mean what > the casual reader will think it means. > > E.g., > > + This method is designed to work with static links (nested > functions > + handling). Static links are function properties whose > evaluation return > + the frame base address for the enclosing frame. > > I think we need something less ambiguous / more clear. Having dived in nested functions, “static link” is currently wired in my mind to nested functions. ;-) What do you think it can be confused with? Statically linked libraries? One advantage of “static link” is that it’s the term which the DWARF specification uses. GCC says “static chain” instead and I’ve read somewhere “activation record”, although it actually means: the record pointed to by the static chain. I liked the one I used because of the DWARF specification vocabulary, but I’m open to changing it if it’s confusing. Thanks in advance for the review! -- Pierre-Marie de Rodat