From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4850 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2002 20:10:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4842 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2002 20:10:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 20:10:22 -0000 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29380; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:10:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 4E4DB11429; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:09:54 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15515.36754.150809.355833@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:10:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Select a particular mangling of a demangled symbol in lookup_block_symbol In-Reply-To: <20020322135219.B24693@nevyn.them.org> References: <20020214185503.A28610@nevyn.them.org> <15511.47485.557533.258275@localhost.redhat.com> <20020322135219.B24693@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00431.txt.bz2 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