Re: [RFA]: Fix partial symbol lookups

Daniel Berlin
2000-11-16T08:44:00Z

"Peter.Schauer" <Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> writes:

> > > The previous version of lookup_partial_symbol (before your changes) would
> > > have found both mangled and demangled names.
> >
> > Now this I take issue with.
> > How could it possibly find demangled names, if it doesn't have access
> > to them?
> > lookup_partial_symbol didn't find demangled names before my patch on
> > 10-12. It doesn't have the code to do so, as you pointed out yourself
> > (because the SYMBOL_MATCHES_NAME is no better than the strcmp, since
> > we have no access to demangled names), unless the symbol name was the
> > demangled name, rather than the mangled name, which doesn't occur.
>
> Not true.
> There were no demangled names in partial symbols from most symbol readers,
> _except_ for the HP reader, which we are currently discussing, and which
> I discovered rather late in the day as well.
> Before your change, lookup_partial_symbol fell back to a linear search
> if it didn't find the symbol and had the chance to find the demangled symbol
> via SYMBOL_MATCHES_NAME during the linear search.

I'll happily make it linear search on HPUX, as soon as HP confirms
it's necessary.

>
> > > As a starter, the problems mentioned in
> > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00230.html
> > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00247.html
> > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00248.html
> > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00220.html
> > > are still not addressed.
> >
> > The first one includes a patch, as soon as it's approved, it'll be
> > applied.
>
> And which will have to be adapted to your patches. Which will mean more
> work for me, now that I am responsible for fixing _your_ bug because _I_
> submitted the RFA, right ?

No, I'll clean it up if you like. Assuming you don't want me to just
revert all the 10-12 changes and be done with it.

>
> > The second one points out things this patch fixes.
>
> No, it contains an example which is not fixed after the infinite regression
> gets fixed. Please read the message again and then try the example with
> any combination of suggested fixes you like. It will not work.
>
I meant the patch I submitted, that is in the subject line ([RFA]: Fix
partial symbol lookups)

> > The third one is the same.
>
> No, it points out another problem with `maint check'. Have you ever tried it
> with your patches ?

Yes, I have.
(gdb) maintenance check-symtabs
During symbol reading, type qualifier 'const' ignored.
During symbol reading, unsupported stack op: 'DW_OP_deref_size'.
During symbol reading, type qualifier 'volatile' ignored.
(gdb)

>
> > The fourth one has to do with makefile tweaking, so i have no clue
> > what that has to do with anything.
>
> Sorry, typo, I meant
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00250.html
> I've also submitted a patch for that one though. It is the easiest to fix,
> and it seems that I will have to take care of that one as well ?

As I said about the first patch, i'll take care of it, assuming you
don't want me to just revert all the changes.
--Dan