From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11601 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2003 18:56:22 -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 11570 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2003 18:56:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jun 2003 18:56:21 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19QtjS-0002XA-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:57:02 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19Qtif-0004Up-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:56:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] always use demangled name to set scope Message-ID: <20030613185612.GA17267@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030612231727.GA19870@nevyn.them.org> <20030613042214.GA24015@nevyn.them.org> <20030613043834.GA24239@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: 2003-06/txt/msg00472.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:53:42AM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:38:34 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:28:13PM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > > >> Yeah, but we need DW_TAG_namespace to do [nested type deduction], > >> and a version of GCC providing that probably won't be released > >> until next calendar year. I certainly don't use demangled names to > >> do nested type deduction if we have DW_TAG_namespace, but I do > >> think it will be important for the next two or three years. > > > That's namespace deduction. Nested type deduction is a slightly > > different story - the principle is the same but we already have all > > the information we need. > > Not if the type is nested inside a namespace. If your code is full of Violent agreement again. I'm using the words differently from you; I was strictly speaking about class C { class D { .. }; }; > namespace N { > class C { > ... > }; > } > > then, as far as I can tell, you can't tell that C is really N::C > without either DW_TAG_namespace or demangled names. And if you think > it's C, then users get confused if they refer to it as N::C and > nothing happens, and you get constant RTTI warnings when printing out > stuff. (Which, besides being annoying, make ddd impossible to use, > which matters to some people.) Yes, all definitely true. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer