From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Hilfinger Cc: jimb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Introduce notion of "search name" Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:27:00 -0000 Message-id: <20040512132708.GA25122@nevyn.them.org> References: <20040412082254.97735F2E7C@nile.gnat.com> <20040429103706.4793BF2BFF@nile.gnat.com> <20040429211458.GB27523@nevyn.them.org> <20040430084538.ECDE1F2E1C@nile.gnat.com> <20040430134955.GA15786@nevyn.them.org> <20040503084937.439F4F2C0A@nile.gnat.com> <20040511194843.GA15952@nevyn.them.org> <20040512105959.806E6F2DE4@nile.gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00366.html On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 06:59:59AM -0400, Paul Hilfinger wrote: > > > Unfortunately, discussion of that took over the thread, and you never > > answered my last question about this patch: > > > > On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:29:55AM -0500, Paul Hilfinger wrote: > > > > What you did not explain is how [SYMBOL_DEMANGLED_SEARCH_NAME] > > > > is supposed to be different from SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME. > > > > > > Well, the direct answer is that for Ada, > > > SYMBOL_DEMANGLED_SEARCH_NAME (sym) == NULL > > > whereas > > > SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME (sym) == the "linkage name" of the symbol > > > Perhaps, now that you bring it up, it might be clearer simply to make > > > this a predicate: > > > SYMBOL_SEARCHED_BY_DEMANGLED_NAME (sym) > > > or something like that? > > > > I don't think that either of those divisions is general enough to be > > useful. Why should the search name have to be the linkage name or the > > demangled name? For C++ there are two potential 'search names' - the > > name without DMGL_PARAMS, or just the basename. Neither of these is > > the linkage or natural name. > > > > I don't want us to proliferate name-related macros without a very clear > > understanding of when each one is appropriate. > > Daniel, > > OK. The only use for SYMBOL_SEARCHED_BY_DEMANGLED_NAME is to answer > the question, "Do we need to index this minimal symbol under its > demangled name?" It would work to re-write the test in > build_minimal_symbol_hash_tables as > > if (SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME (msym) != SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (msym)) > add_minsym_to_demangled_hash_table (msym, > objfile->msymbol_demangled_hash); > > from the current > > if (SYMBOL_DEMANGLED_NAME (msym) != NULL) > ... > > (although to use !=, you'd also want to document the fact that when > SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME is strcmp-equal to SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME, it is also > pointer equal). This re-write avoids introducing a new name, answering > one of your objections. Furthermore, minimal symbols are searched for only > by the linkage name or the search name (by definition), so it seems that the > proposed test is correct. > > What do you think? I like it! -- Daniel Jacobowitz