This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] teach linespec about nested classes
- From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- To: David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>
- Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>,gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>,Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>,Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:35:28 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfa] teach linespec about nested classes
- References: <m3y8rgngq1.fsf@coconut.kealia.com><16424.12248.555001.90026@localhost.redhat.com><yf2vfmebx3a.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com>
David Carlton writes:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 20:11:52 -0500, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> said:
>
> > The approach looks ok, but, how does the HP related comment fit in
> > with the new code? I know it came in with the HP merge, which is a
> > clue as to its accuracy.... I guess MichaelC found no problems, so
> > it should be ok.
>
> As far as I can tell from that and from other comments elsewhere, HP
> must have been the first people with a C++ compiler that supported
> namespaces and that GDB supported. So some of the namespace-related
> comments look more HP-specific than they were. Also, as far as I can
> tell, HP was generating fully-qualified type names long before we
> were, so that would have led to some differences as well. But now I
> think that the names should look quite similar for DWARF 2 code and HP
> code, so those comments shouldn't be relevant any more.
>
definitely HP were first on a lot of the c++ stuff, yes. And they
changed a lot of decode_lie_1 (now decode_compound).
> I couldn't think of any reason why looking up every intermediate name
> as a class would make any more sense for HP than it would for other
> cases. And, as you say, MichaelC found no problems, which is good.
>
probably their compiler has changed too, in 5+ years (this stuff dates
back to 1997).
> > I have a new version which incorporates the new comments. Does this
> > still work for you?
>
> The functionality is fine, but the comments are a little off (it
> includes the out-of-date HP comments instead of my new ones). How
> about this version? I updated my comments to use the same example
> that you had used.
groan, I missed that. Sure, you can commit this.