Re: FYI: fix PR 9708

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com> writes:

[...]
Daniel> Now one of those is going to get a namespace and the other isn't.
Daniel> I'd have thought we would call them both f()::x - although clearly
Daniel> that's not sufficient to uniquely identify them.  Should they
Daniel> both be ! die_needs_namespace?

Yes, I think we should also omit DW_TAG_subprogram here.  I just didn't
think of it.  I can either just check it in, or if you have an easy way
to test it, let me know.  I've appended the patch.

Calling them f()::x might be interesting, but there are some caveats.

First, I am not sure the rest of gdb (I'm thinking the parser at least)
is set up to handle this.  AFAIK this would be a new feature.

Second, we'd probably have to insert two symbols here -- one for the
global name and one for the local name.  There are cases where gcc has
to give the static a synthetic linkage name, e.g.:

struct K {
  int m () {
    static bool themagicstatic = false;
    int x;
    {
      static bool themagicstatic = false;
      x = themagicstatic ? 23 : 24;
    }
    return x + themagicstatic ? 23 : 24;
  }
}

This leads to:

opsy. nm pr | grep themagicstatic
080497de V _ZZN1K1mEvE14themagicstatic
080497dd V _ZZN1K1mEvE14themagicstatic_0

.. so in the inner scope, we still need a symbol named "themagicstatic";
calling it "themagicstatic_0" would be confusing to the user.

Daniel> I'm sure I originally fixed some bug by giving these things the
Daniel> physname of 'x'... but probably, whatever it was is also fixed by your
Daniel> change to use list_in_scope.

Yeah, the die_needs_namespace change is needed to get the proper name
for the symbol in new_symbol.  Otherwise it ends up like
"K::themagicstatic", which is wrong.

Tom

*** dwarf2read.c.~1.366.~	2010-03-12 17:20:15.000000000 -0700
--- dwarf2read.c	2010-03-15 13:47:54.000000000 -0600
***************
*** 3241,3247 ****
  	 and have a mangled name.  */
        if (die->parent->tag ==  DW_TAG_lexical_block
  	  || die->parent->tag ==  DW_TAG_try_block
! 	  || die->parent->tag ==  DW_TAG_catch_block)
  	return 0;
        return 1;
  
--- 3241,3248 ----
  	 and have a mangled name.  */
        if (die->parent->tag ==  DW_TAG_lexical_block
  	  || die->parent->tag ==  DW_TAG_try_block
! 	  || die->parent->tag ==  DW_TAG_catch_block
! 	  || die->parent->tag == DW_TAG_subprogram)
  	return 0;
        return 1;