Re: DW_AT_specification: long ago GDB change

[Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 08:49:16AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 15 Apr 2004 17:19:17 -0500, Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Here are the attributes I see that we shouldn't search for in dies
> > > referenced by DW_AT_specification, but which are reasonable to look
> > > for in dies referred to by DW_AT_abstract_origin:
> > >
> > >   - DW_AT_declaration
> > >   - DW_AT_decl_column
> > >   - DW_AT_decl_file
> > >   - DW_AT_decl_line
> > 
> > I disagree about the other three; if the definition has different source
> > coordinates, it will have the attributes.  If it doesn't, there's no reason
> > to emit them again, and we should look them up in the declaration.
> 
> Yeah, that makes sense to me.  I'd forgotten about the peeking through 
> DW_AT_specification behavior for DW_AT_declaration; thanks for the kick 
> in the right direction.

Okay.  So then DW_AT_declaration is the only thing that needs to be
blocked.