From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19704 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2002 21:13:57 -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 19605 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2002 21:13:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 2002 21:13:53 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16gBOa-0003Sg-00; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:13:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Peter.Schauer" Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: your stabsread patch Message-ID: <20020227161352.A13286@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Peter.Schauer" , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020227154714.A12365@nevyn.them.org>; <200202272105.WAA08633@reisser.regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200202272105.WAA08633@reisser.regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00722.txt.bz2 I am going to stop trying to review patches when I don't have time to look at them properly. You're quite correct. The situation is somewhat suboptimal, as static methods will now 'always' be marked stubbed in v3; but we'll return to that if/when GCC fixes debug output. No further objection; I'm not sure I can approve C++-specific patches to stabsread.c, though. On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:05:26PM +0100, Peter.Schauer wrote: > But my patch still sets the is_stub flag in this case, as the full physname > (which is output by gcc3) does not match the main_fn_name. > And together with the last gdb_mangle_name patch, check_stub_method will > do the right thing with v3/stabs. > > Or am I missing something else ? > > > ...is not correct. > > > > Look at the debug output for a v3/stabs static method. Note that the > > method is in fact stubbed! The physname is all there (which will be > > handled in gdb_mangle_name after your last patch) and the return type > > is there, but the arguments are missing. > > > > Feel free to argue that this is GCC's bug instead of ours. I think > > both should be fixed. > > > > [I would have replied, but I have technical difficulties with my mail > > right now.] > > > > -- > > Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University > > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer > > > > > > > -- > Peter Schauer pes@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de > -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer