I have nothing to add to what Paul just said :) This is definitely the intent and what we should do.
-eric On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:26 AM Paul Robinson via Dwarf-Discuss < dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote: > The intent of the index is given pretty plainly in the non-normative text > at the bottom of p.137; you should be able to look up any unqualified name > in the index. If the normative text doesn't accomplish that, we have an > opportunity to improve the spec. J > > > > FWIW here's my take: > > > > Enumerations are a bit unusual in that the enumerators are children of the > enumeration type, but the enumerator names are not qualified by the type > name (usually—a C++ enum-class should not put enumerators into the index, I > think). But you need some rule that excludes enumerations that are not > otherwise "global" (e.g., they are contained in a class or local to a > function). > > > > For imported entities, I'd say if the imported entity would have satisfied > the criteria for inclusion in the index if it had been "inlined" at the > point where it was imported, then it ought to be in the index. > > --paulr > > > > > > *From:* Dwarf-Discuss [mailto:dwarf-discuss-boun...@lists.dwarfstd.org] *On > Behalf Of *David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:30 PM > *To:* Pavel Labath > *Cc:* dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org > *Subject:* Re: [Dwarf-Discuss] debug_names - what should go in ? > > > > Yep - sounds like it to me. > > I suppose, arguably, one could say that successful name lookups of things > in the index can be fast, while lookups that fail, or find names not in the > index may be slow - but that seems unacceptable to me (in many cases "slow" > would be "prohibitively slow" especially the first time - since it'd amount > to the non-index case: the consumer having to build its own index from > scratch) > > Maybe Adrian or Eric can talk to how the Apple indexes worked in these > cases. > > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:24 AM Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 at 16:44, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd say any case where a consumer couldn't actually rely on the table to > do name resolution would be a bug - or at least something that needs to be > seriously considered/discussed/figured out how the name table can be used > in those situations. > > > > Agreed. > > > > This question can be demonstrated on a simple c++ program > > ============ > > namespace namesp1 { int var; } > > namespace namesp2 = namesp1; // DW_TAG_imported_declaration > > > > enum enum_type { enumerator }; // DW_TAG_enumeration_type, > DW_TAG_enumerator > > > > int main() { > > return namesp2::var + enumerator; > > } > > ============ > > > > Debugging with gdb (without any indexes), the following 4 expressions > succeed > > 1) namesp1::var > > 2) namesp2::var > > 3) (enum_type)0 > > 4) enumerator > > > > The question is how should an index-aware debugger find the entities > referenced by expressions 2 and 4 if they are not present in the index? > > > > They way I see it -- it can't. Which would be a bug in the spec by your > definition. > > _______________________________________________ > Dwarf-Discuss mailing list > Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org > http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org >
_______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
