Re: RFC: Demangle partial symbols and save memory too

David Carlton
2003-01-27T19:10:35Z

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:01:09 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:53:35AM -0800, David Carlton wrote:

>> Personally, I'd prefer that name be const char *.

> Thanks for reminding me; I'll fix the first const char *. You'll
> notice I fixed the ugly places I was modifying it already, from our
> last discussion.

Yup!

>> Well, I like this better than the last time I saw it, but I'll still
>> give you a hard time. :-) You're assuming that name[len] is readable,
>> for the sake of an optimization that doesn't seem to me to have much
>> of a benefit (it could even be a pessimization if a high enough
>> proportion of names have name[len] nonzero, though that seems unlikely
>> to me). On the other hand, it does seem silly to copy the name if you
>> don't have to; a matter of taste, I suppose.

> It's simple:
> - stabs, name[len] will be readable but generally non-zero.
> - everything else, name[len] will be zero.

> Hmm, think it would be better to push the alloca out into the stabs
> callers? Maybe that would work.

Oh, I wouldn't go to that length unless you're particularly
motivated. Also, you'd have to change add_psymbol_to_list if you went
that way.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu