From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18736 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 22:33:08 -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 18729 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2002 22:33:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2002 22:33:08 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9MMWtl26643; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:32:55 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Daniel Berlin Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Elena Zannoni , Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa] accept DW_TAG_namespace and friends, possibly on 5.3 References: From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: 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/msg00441.txt.bz2 On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 18:09:48 -0400 (EDT), Daniel Berlin said: > Now I remember why i didn't do it in the first place. Using decl's > aren't common to the tree structure (USING_DECL and USING_STMT are > in cp/cp-tree.def). > We also never end up walking the statement tree, and there are no > debug hooks for handling each statement anyway (inlined subroutines > get handled without needing to do this), so it's a loss. Thus, > we'll never see a USING_STMT or USING_DECL. > In other words, this is gonna be complicated and i don't know if it'll be > accepted, but we'll see. > I can make the DW_TAG_imported_* appear and appear in the right order, but > not necessarily in the right context. That's too bad. Is it just the ones that are in block scope that cause problems, or do the ones in namespace scope other than the global namespace also get dumped into the global namespace instead? Either way, probably having them in the wrong scope would probably be better for users than not having them at all. (Though I'm not an experienced enough C++ programmer to know for sure how confusing that would be.) But it's definitely suboptimal. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu