This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb/1465
- From: David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>
- To: nobody at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb-prs at sources dot redhat dot com,
- Date: 26 Nov 2003 21:58:00 -0000
- Subject: Re: gdb/1465
- Reply-to: David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>
The following reply was made to PR c++/1465; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com>
To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
Cc: gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdb/1465
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:55:03 -0800
On 26 Nov 2003 21:48:01 -0000, mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) said:
>> Right. But, as I just e-mailed in a separate thread, I think this is
>> part of the problem here - this symbol shouldn't be in a static block,
>> it should be in a global block. And my latest patch awaiting
>> approval, among other things, puts it in a global block.
> But what about:
> int foo ()
> {
> class A { ... };
> }
> int bar ()
> {
> class A { ... ... };
> }
> Classes are scoped. Wouldn't you have to do a bunch of work to
> make sure that the namespace lookup works properly if all the
> symbols live in global symtabs?
Sorry, let me clarify that - I move the C++ class symbols that are
currently in the static block to the global block. The above class
symbols should be in the blocks that are local to the functions in
question - I can't remember offhand if we're putting them in the
correct place currently, but, if so, I shouldn't have changed that.