From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31911 invoked by alias); 4 May 2011 17:58:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 31903 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2011 17:58:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 May 2011 17:58:23 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E5910F2A; Wed, 4 May 2011 17:58:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (pool-173-75-31-51.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net [173.75.31.51]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE7B10F29; Wed, 4 May 2011 17:58:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1QHgL7-0000to-UJ; Wed, 04 May 2011 13:58:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 17:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Keith Seitz Subject: Re: Is physname mangled or not? (PR c++/8216) Message-ID: <20110504175821.GA3141@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Keith Seitz References: <20110504150846.GA27179@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201105041732.p44HWhvj008763@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201105041732.p44HWhvj008763@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00105.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 07:32:43PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > It seems that by now we have agreement that GCC is correct here. So I guess > I see two options remaining: > > - Code a test that compares class name and (demangled) function name, but > explicitly removes template instance parameters first > > or > > - Have the symbol reader call is_constructor_name on the mangled name while > it is still available, and store that information somewhere in the type > information > > Thoughts? I'd suggest the former. Anything you do with mangled names will be unexpectedly complex; sometimes you just can't count on having them. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Mentor Graphics