From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23882 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2002 20:25:16 -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 23868 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2002 20:25:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2002 20:25:14 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17wqzP-0004uQ-00 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:25:03 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17wq3y-0004Qq-00 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:25:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Search for symbol names the same way they're hashed. Message-ID: <20021002202542.GA16899@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200210020329.g923TE702388@zenia.red-bean.com> <20021002200203.GA4762@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 01:20:30PM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:02:03 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > > Dare I suggest SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME? That is, the only name we should > > search for when we're looking up this function in symbol tables. > > Since that's the other use. > > That makes sense; the main thing that worries me is that I'm not sure > that we might not sometimes search by other names (at least in the > minimal symbol table?). I think that, if SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME didn't > already exist, then I'd prefer SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME to > SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME; but there's probably some advantage to not having > anything called SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME. Hmm; I could go either way on > this one. I'd rather not _change_ the meaning of SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME; either leave it or eliminate it. I don't mind either of those. I don't see a real benefit to renaming it... > > > I agree about SYMBOL_PRINT_NAME... or, how about > > SYMBOL_PRINTABLE_NAME? > > SYMBOL_PRINT_NAME is better, I think: lots of names are printable, but > we're only going to print one of them. (Though I like the idea of a > function SYMBOL_PRINTABLE_NAME that takes an unprintable symbol name > and bowdlerizes it by putting asterisks in place of swear words...) > > David Carlton > carlton@math.stanford.edu > -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer