From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Paul Hilfinger , jimb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Introduce notion of "search name" Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:59:00 -0000 Message-id: <20040512165907.GF16083@gnat.com> References: <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> <20040512132708.GA25122@nevyn.them.org> <40A2313E.1080100@gnu.org> <20040512142254.GA26822@nevyn.them.org> <40A23E97.1020906@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00370.html > I.e., through out GDB there is the assumption that symtab internally > uses simple strings. > > We shouldn't. Recalling that one of the underlying problems here was > the need to construct search names on the fly using more complext debug > info, we should instead have interfaces such as: This is a worthy goal, but I see it as a goal separate from what the patch is trying to achieve. From what Paul is saying, the change you are objecting to introduces a check that is correct within the current implementation, and makes the kind of assumption that's already used everywhere. Why can't we use the current framework as is until the cleanup is done (BTW: who's going to do it, and when?). Admitedly, we have to document a temporary assumption, but I don't think this will affect the symbol interface cleanup you're suggesting all that much. -- Joel