From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21418 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2003 17:10:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21337 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2003 17:10:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp4.Stanford.EDU) (171.67.16.29) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 2003 17:10:36 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by smtp4.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h5CHAZd2018873 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (jackfruit.Stanford.EDU [171.64.38.136]) by smtp4.Stanford.EDU (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5CHASMs018820; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5CHASm12372; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:10:28 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb , Elena Zannoni , Jim Blandy Subject: Re: DW_AT_specification and partial symtabs References: <20030612170545.GA16995@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030612170545.GA16995@nevyn.them.org> 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: 2003-06/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:05:45 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > I'll answer this in more depth in a bit. For now, something to > consider: I would like to add .debug_typenames (spelling?) to GCC - > it's an SGI extension, IIRC. Yes. It's actually .debug_pubtypes, and has made it into the DWARF 3 spec. (Though the description there could use some work.) I don't think that I'm too likely to do that myself, though, for various reasons. >> void foo () >> { >> class Local { >> public: >> int mem() {return 1;} >> }; >> >> ... >> } >> >> then is the compiler allowed to put a definition of Local::mem as a >> child of the comp unit die (with a DW_AT_specification pointing to a >> DIE inside of foo somewhere)? > I believe so. Ulgh. That's what I think, too. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu