Re: [RFA] Select a particular mangling of a demangled symbol in lookup_block_symbol

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 05:19:41PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > > OK, approved. But I have my usual couple of questions: 
 > 
 > Committed to trunk only; I'll move it to the branch in a week or so if
 > it doesn't break anything.
 > 
 > > Was the corresponding testsuite patch sorted out?  Looks like it
 > > wasn't. Does this patch have any effect on the testsuite results w/o
 > 
 > Nope.
 > 
 > > the testsuite patch?
 > 
 > I don't believe so.
 > 
 > > In the above, should it be mangled_name = name or mangled_name =
 > > modified_name?  It would seem more uniform with the rest of the
 > > function if we just used modified_name. Unless there is some problem
 > > with case sensitivity, in which case, calling cplus_demangle with
 > > modified_name seems wrong anyway. I.e. is it guaranteed that
 > > case_sensitive_off is NOT in effect?  Just out of curiosity What
 > > would happen if the user sets the case sensitivity off?
 > > Wouldn't it change _ZN3fooC1ERS_ to _zn3fooc1ers_ ? (of course the user
 > > can always do a lot of things to screw himself up)
 > 
 > As far as I'm concerned - if the user sets case sensitivity off while
 > debugging C++, they deserve what they get.  Mangling is not
 > case-insensitive.  In fact, in v3, cplus_demangle is absolutely
 > guaranteed to fail (_z is not a legal prefix for a mangled name). 
 > Perhaps it would be better to call cplus_demangle with the original
 > name.

I think that just to be safe we should do that, yes.

 > 
 > > I guess what I am really asking is when is lookup_symbol called with a
 > > mangled name. I tried to do "break foo::foo", and I never saw it called
 > > with a mangled name.
 > 
 > find_methods will do it, in two places, at least if you're using stabs:
 >                 sym_arr[i1] = lookup_symbol (phys_name,
 >                                              NULL, VAR_NAMESPACE,
 >                                              (int *) NULL,
 >                                              (struct symtab **) NULL);
 > 

Yes, I notice a difference stabs vs. dwarf2.

 > It shouldn't do this, of course, but that requires a lot of work that I
 > haven't gotten to yet.
 > 

Elena


 > -- 
 > Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
 > MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer