From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-32360-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 28637 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2004 21:29:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 28623 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2004 21:29:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 2004 21:29:07 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3GLT7JW016178
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:29:07 -0400
Received: from zenia.home.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3GLT5j31518;
	Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:29:06 -0400
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: DW_AT_specification: long ago GDB change
References: <vt2ad1d6crg.fsf@zenia.home>
	<xypad1dqrhy.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com>
	<vt2y8ow3mvu.fsf@zenia.home>
	<xypr7uonl4j.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com>
	<20040416141520.GB9718@nevyn.them.org>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040416141520.GB9718@nevyn.them.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:29:00 -0000
Message-ID: <vt2ekqnzkbb.fsf@zenia.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2


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.