From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2795 invoked by alias); 4 May 2011 17:00:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 2756 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2011 17:00:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Wed, 04 May 2011 17:00:27 +0000 Received: (qmail 7752 invoked from network); 4 May 2011 17:00:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 May 2011 17:00:27 -0000 Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 17:00:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Keith Seitz Subject: Re: Is physname mangled or not? (PR c++/8216) Message-ID: <20110504165903.GA26809@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jan Kratochvil , Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Keith Seitz References: <201105031858.p43IwneJ006235@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <20110504150846.GA27179@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110504150846.GA27179@host1.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:08:46PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:58:49 +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > - For template classes, the method name of a constructor does > > *not* contain the template instance type list, while the type > > name does, and thus the strcmp fails > > <1><55>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_class_type) > <56> DW_AT_name : (indirect string, offset: 0xb): C > <2><61>: Abbrev Number: 7 (DW_TAG_subprogram) > <63> DW_AT_name : C > <68> DW_AT_declaration : 1 > <69> DW_AT_object_pointer: <0x71> > <3><71>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_formal_parameter) > <72> DW_AT_type : <0x80> > <76> DW_AT_artificial : 1 > <2><78>: Abbrev Number: 8 (DW_TAG_template_type_param) > <79> DW_AT_name : T > <7b> DW_AT_type : <0x119> > (less important attributes removed). > > This is IMO a GCC debug/ bug, shouldn't <63> DW_AT_name be `C'? No. The constructor is named C, not C, I believe. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Mentor Graphics