From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19127 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2002 18:36:49 -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 19118 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2002 18:36:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Oct 2002 18:36:49 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9NIach02377; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:36:38 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Elena Zannoni Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Jim Blandy , Daniel Berlin Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa] accept DW_TAG_namespace and friends, possibly on 5.3 References: <15797.53437.183222.336553@localhost.redhat.com> <15797.55864.443242.623352@localhost.redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:36:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <15797.55864.443242.623352@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00466.txt.bz2 On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 19:07:36 -0400, Elena Zannoni said: > I think it can go in now. Okay, I've committed it on trunch and branch. So now the way is clear for appropriate patches to be added to GCC. (Maybe wait until 5.3 is actually released so as not to piss off people who use CVS GCC for C++ without using CVS GDB.) Daniel: one pitfall that I thought of regarding using directives is that it looks like GCC internally behaves as if there's a using directive after each anonymous namespace declaration. (Sensible enough, since that's what the standard recommends.) In an ideal world, it would be nice if no debugging information for those using directives got emitted. That way, GDB can emit one internally itself without having to worry about whether its internal name for the anonymous namespace agrees with GCC's internal name for the anonymous namespace. (In fact, versions of GDB on some branches already do this!) You've probably thought of this already, but if not, I just wanted to bring it up. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu