From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9517 invoked by alias); 22 Jul 2002 19:16:26 -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 9493 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2002 19:16:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2002 19:16:24 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6MJGJc25551; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:16:19 -0700 From: david carlton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15676.23043.163785.123086@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:18:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: david carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch for PR gdb/574 In-Reply-To: <20020722190220.GA6700@nevyn.them.org> References: <15676.21042.125481.349851@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> <20020722190220.GA6700@nevyn.them.org> Cc: carlton@math.Stanford.EDU X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:02:20 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > First, do you have an FSF copyright assignment on file? It's in the mail. > Second of all, VALUE_ENCLOSING_TYPE is a bad idea, as far as I'm > concerned. Thanks for the feedback; I'll poke around some more in the ChangeLog. > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:42:58AM -0700, david carlton wrote: >> Also (and this may be related to that bad memory access), there >> seems to be a difference of opinion among various pieces of code as >> to whose job it is to demangle symbols that you want to look up in >> symbol tables. > For the latter, generally one should look up demangled names. > Especially now that I've hashed the symbol tables based on the > demangled name! symtab.c(lookup_symbol) still tries to demangle the symbol name. I poked around with this a bit last Friday, and I'm pretty sure that this caused a problem (note that the rtti function was demangling the name itself, and even demangling it beyond what cplus_demangle does). I don't have enough of a feel for whose job it is to do what here to be sure which functions are demangling inappropriately, but I'm pretty sure that one of them is. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu