|
|
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 17:34 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>The problem is that statics inside classes have TYPEs as contextes. I
> >>>think
> >>>proper fix is to unwind them up to the containing scope.
> >>>
> >>>Bootstrapped/regtested i686-pc-gnu-linux, OK?
> >>>
> >>> /* For local statics lookup proper context die. */
> >>> if (TREE_STATIC (decl) && decl_function_context (decl))
> >>>! {
> >>>! tree context = DECL_CONTEXT (decl);
> >>>!
> >>>! while (TYPE_P (context))
> >>>! context = TYPE_CONTEXT (context);
> >>>! context_die = lookup_decl_die (context);
> >>>! }
> >>
> >>Note that you can then end up with a FUNCTION_DECL as the context again.
> >> Like:
> >>
> >> void f() {
> >> struct S {
> >> void g() {
> >> struct T {
> >> virtual void f();
> >> };
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >>The virtual table for T will be inside lots of things.
> >>
> >>So, don't you need to iterate on both conditions?
> >
> >
> > Well, I think that in this case the context I should put f() in is g's
> > internal scope, but perhaps I am wrong here - dwarf is definitly not my
> > domain :(
> > I will try to check this out tomorrow unless someone more aware of the
> > detials explains it...
>
> If you have that flexibility, why not put it directly in T? That's
> where it really belongs!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
How do we handle static class variables and functions right now?
We should be able to do the same thing whether the type is local to the
function or not.
Jan, in the example you gave, where was the static?
>
|
|