Re: [RFA/commit/Win64] Remove new extra leading underscore in symbol name

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> I'm confused on your change.  It sounds like you're using a debugger
> that postdates the change to default to not output underscores on
> win64, with a compiler that still outputs the underscores.  What
> happens when you update your compiler?  I expect your patch to break
> binaries produced by a compiler that also doesn't output
> underscores anymore on c symbols, as mingw64's.  Isn't that so?

You might be right - I haven't tried to build an updated compiler since
building one on MinGW is a big problem for someone like me who almost
never works on Windows and is just not setup for it.

> I don't think either a bfd_get_target or bfd_get_target_info check
> will always get you a right answer, since those essentially are
> returning hardcoded answers in bfd, not how the binaries were
> built.  Am I wrong?

No, you're probably right. I was slowly realizing this while I was
updating the comment I wrote in the previous patch. The problem is:
what's the right way to detect how the binary was built? Right now,
the bfd change is a major incompatibility nightmare since minimal
symbols and symbols no longer have the same name.  GDB needs to be able
to support both (IMO).

-- 
Joel