[Bug debug/39471] DW_TAG_imported_module should be used (not DW_TAG_imported_declaration)

["dodji at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1929 bytes --]



------- Comment #8 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-03-17 10:02 -------
Subject: Re:  DW_TAG_imported_module should be used (not
 DW_TAG_imported_declaration)

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org a écrit :
> ------- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-03-17 08:52 -------
> Created an attachment (id=17472)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17472&action=view)
>  --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17472&action=view)
> gcc44-local-imported-decl.patch
> 
> Incremental patch to emit DW_TAG_imported_declaration DIEs (other than
> namespace aliases) in the right lexical blocks.
>

I am wondering what happens when cp_emit_debug_info_for_using is called
for a using declaration that appears at global scope. Once we are in the
USING_STMT case of cp_gimplify_expr, will there be an enclosing
GIMPLE_BIND for the USING_STMT generated for the global using declaration ?

For the record, cp_parser_using_declaration calls either
do_local_using_decl or do_toplevel_using_decl, depending on if we are at
local or global scope. Both do_local_using_decl and
do_toplevel_using_decl end up calling cp_parser_using_declaration.


> 
> Concerning:
> "We won't be going through the USING_STMT code path in case of We won't be
> going through the USING_STMT code path in case of namespace aliases, sorry. My
> last comment was irrelevant."
> we really should be going through USING_STMT or something similar for namespace
> aliases as well, see PR37890.  Given that namespace aliases are just emitted
> using gen_namespace_die, perhaps just adding the NAMESPACE_DECL to BLOCK_VARS

Yeah I should try something like that in cp_gimplify_expr whenever we
are handed BIND_EXPR. In that case, I can wall the BIND_EXPR_VARS of the
of the BIND_EXPR and add any NAMESPACE_DECL to the BLOCK_VARS of the
matching block. Would that make sense ?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39471