From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30811 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2010 20:11:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 30796 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2010 20:11:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:11:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 4247 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2010 20:11:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 15 Mar 2010 20:11:29 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: FYI: fix PR 9708 Message-ID: <20100315201121.GA7450@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20100313023630.GA29285@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00559.txt.bz2 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