From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA/symtab: Let search_symbols find exact matches
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 21:17:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030210211739.GA20772@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ro1hebbj0ra.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 01:15:21PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:25:06 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
>
> > There are like a million ways in GDB to find a list of symbols. Me,
> > I think that's a recipe for suffering. They're all subtly
> > different. I want the same set of symbols considered for overload
> > resolution and tab completion, and there's no reason that this
> > should be different from the results of "break". I intend some day
> > to condense them all.
>
> Yup. I'm just nervous about this for a couple of reasons:
>
> 1) If functions try to handle too many situations, they get ugly; I'm
> still in recovery from trying to deal with find_overload_match, for
> example. On the other hand, duplicated code is ugly, too. And
> we're programming in C, which limits our options. I don't know how
> to best resolve this tension in this particular case; I doubt I'll
> be thrilled with whatever outcome we end up with. (Unless cleaning
> this mess takes long enough that we end up porting GDB to C++
> first, though even that would only go so far in this instance.)
I am seriously considering raising the C++ issue again.
> 2) I don't understand search_symbols yet; it's a lot messier than
> make_symbol_overload_list. Based on some reading of the code and
> on my experience with cleaning up lookup_symbol_aux, I expect that
> much of that messiness doesn't need to be there. I'd be happier if
> somebody (you, me, some other foolhardy person who wants to be
> initiated into the mysteries of GDB's symbol-management "logic")
> cleaned up search_symbols first. That way, we could have an
> informed opinion about the differences between search_symbols and
> make_symbol_overload_list before merging them. (And I suspect that
> the differences would shrink over the course of that cleanup,
> making the merge easier.)
Some of that messiness definitely is going to go away, it's on my hit
list. But I don't feel like doing it right this moment :)
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-10 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-10 16:01 Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-10 20:10 ` David Carlton
2003-02-10 20:18 ` David Carlton
2003-02-10 20:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-10 21:15 ` David Carlton
2003-02-10 21:17 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-02-20 22:41 ` David Carlton
2003-02-21 14:10 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-21 15:27 ` Elena Zannoni
2003-02-21 17:14 ` David Carlton
2003-02-21 17:09 ` David Carlton
2003-02-25 0:35 ` David Carlton
2003-02-21 19:15 ` Elena Zannoni
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030210211739.GA20772@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox