From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24944 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2010 19:00:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 24936 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jun 2010 19:00:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:00:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2701A2BACCE; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:00:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id KeR1YzAlXu31; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:00:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8678A2BACB5; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 608FCF5894; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:00:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , ktietz70@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [RFA/commit/Win64] Remove new extra leading underscore in symbol name Message-ID: <20100624190021.GJ2595@adacore.com> References: <1276813536-31761-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20100624182317.GI2595@adacore.com> <201006241942.32722.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201006241942.32722.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2010-06/txt/msg00550.txt.bz2 > 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