Re: RFC: DW_TAG_try_block

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 07:57:36AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:47:03AM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> > H. J. Lu writes:
> >  > Intel C++ compiler generates DW_TAG_try_block for
> >  > 
> >  > 	try
> >  > 	  {
> >  > 	  ...
> >  > 	  }
> >  > 
> >  > Gdb can't print any local variables declared inside the try block. This
> >  > patch seems to work for us. Is that correct?
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > H.J.
> >  > ---
> >  > 2003-05-26  H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
> >  > 
> >  > 	* dwarf2read.c (process_die): Handle DW_TAG_try_block.
> >  > 
> >  > --- gdb/dwarf2read.c.try	2003-05-26 12:23:22.000000000 -0700
> >  > +++ gdb/dwarf2read.c	2003-05-26 12:37:08.000000000 -0700
> >  > @@ -1768,6 +1768,7 @@ process_die (struct die_info *die, struc
> >  >           of a function and make GDB `next' properly over inlined functions.  */
> >  >        break;
> >  >      case DW_TAG_lexical_block:
> >  > +    case DW_TAG_try_block:
> >  >        read_lexical_block_scope (die, objfile, cu_header);
> >  >        break;
> >  >      case DW_TAG_class_type:
> > 
> > 
> > Seems ok, can you address Daniel's concern about the catch block?
> > I.e. add that as well? 
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-05/msg00348.html
> 
> > How about adding a little test case to the gdb.c++ directory?
> > 
> 
> I can provide a simple C++ code. But you will need Intel C++ compiler to
> see the problem. Also the current Intel compiler doesn't support RedHat
> 9.

That's good enough - I'd appreciate it if you would post an appropriate
testcase or at least test program.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer