Problem with your patch to is_type_conversion_operator

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

This patch caused a few dozen regressions on the GCC 2.95.x/DWARF-2
combination.  This is caused by the v2 vs. v3 use of DW_AT_name for
operators.  In v2 we get:
     DW_AT_name        : operator =
But in v3:
     DW_AT_name        : operator=

So in v3:
399       if (! strchr (" \t\f\n\r", *name))
400         return 0;
triggers for operator=.  We never even go to look at what operator it is. 
But for v2 it doesn't, and name is '='.  That doesn't look like new.  That
doesn't look like delete.  It's not a type conversion operator!

Not that there was anything wrong with your patch; it was papering over this
potential bug (well, potential when that code was written).

I've committed the patch below to fix it.


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

2002-01-15  Daniel Jacobowitz  <drow@mvista.com>

	* c-typeprint.c (is_type_conversion_operator): Add additional
	check for non-conversion operators.

Index: c-typeprint.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/c-typeprint.c,v
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -p -r1.14 c-typeprint.c
--- c-typeprint.c	2002/01/10 00:06:02	1.14
+++ c-typeprint.c	2002/01/16 02:41:47
@@ -402,7 +402,13 @@ is_type_conversion_operator (struct type
   while (strchr (" \t\f\n\r", *name))
     name++;
 
-  if (strncmp (name, "new", 3) == 0)
+  if (!('a' <= *name && *name <= 'z')
+      && !('A' <= *name && *name <= 'Z')
+      && *name != '_')
+    /* If this doesn't look like the start of an identifier, then it
+       isn't a type conversion operator.  */
+    return 0;
+  else if (strncmp (name, "new", 3) == 0)
     name += 3;
   else if (strncmp (name, "delete", 6) == 0)
     name += 6;