Re: FYI: fix PR 9708

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 02:00:11PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Yes, I think we should also omit DW_TAG_subprogram here.  I just didn't
> think of it.  I can either just check it in, or if you have an easy way
> to test it, let me know.  I've appended the patch.

The patch looks good to me; would you mind committing it?

I'm flushing out a bunch of fixed for the C parts of the GDB testsuite
with RealView; in a week or so, I think I'll be ready to start
seriously working on the C++ parts.  At that point I can be less
hypothetical.

> Calling them f()::x might be interesting, but there are some caveats.

The only reason I thought of this was:

drow@caradoc:~% cat a.c
int f()
{
  static int x;
  return x;
}
drow@caradoc:~% nm a.o | c++filt
0000000000000000 T f()
0000000000000000 b f()::x
                 U __gxx_personality_v0

i.e. that's what the physname would be if we demangled the linkage
name.

Other than that, I'm not attached to it.

> opsy. nm pr | grep themagicstatic
> 080497de V _ZZN1K1mEvE14themagicstatic
> 080497dd V _ZZN1K1mEvE14themagicstatic_0

For added amusement pipe that to c++filt.  They demangle the same.
Doesn't that seem like a bug?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery