From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7508 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 21:18:48 -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 3827 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 21:17:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 21:17:00 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18lzwr-0001oZ-00; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:17:49 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18ly3e-0006MU-00; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:16:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Carlton Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] more lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms futzing Message-ID: <20030220211642.GA24294@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <15957.13747.748204.408563@localhost.redhat.com> 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: 2003-02/txt/msg00499.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 12:57:37PM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:08:19 -0500, Elena Zannoni said: > > > A few comments > > Ack! I was considering this patch to be withdrawn, and I hadn't > noticed that it got added to GNATS. Right now, all I'm proposing is > the search_symbols part of this patch (with a comment added), as in PR > symtab/1049. (Incidentally, I'm curious if Daniel considers the patch > in symtab/1070 to still be active: if so, please review the e-mail > discussion that Daniel and I had about this. I actually have more to > say about that if you're considering approving that patch.) Yes, I never withdrew it; that's why I forwarded it to GNATS. > 1) A patch to correct a slight bug that remains in > lookup_partial_symbol. Basically, partial symbols are sorted via > strcmp but we want to use strcmp_iw as our matching criterion; > strcmp and strcmp_iw aren't _quite_ suitable to be used together in > this way. Should they be sorted via strcmp_iw instead? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer