From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23622 invoked by alias); 17 May 2011 18:33:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 23609 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2011 18:33:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 May 2011 18:33:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4HIXDAN025550 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 14:33:13 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4HIXA4a003430 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 May 2011 14:33:12 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4HIXA7E001972; Tue, 17 May 2011 20:33:10 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p4HIX9Et001967; Tue, 17 May 2011 20:33:09 +0200 Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 18:33:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] physname cross-check [Re: [RFA] Typedef'd method parameters [0/4]] Message-ID: <20110517183309.GA1385@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <4DB09E6C.8000202@redhat.com> <4DCC50D8.5030903@redhat.com> <20110516154851.GA24555@host1.jankratochvil.net> <4DD2BB36.5000704@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DD2BB36.5000704@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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/msg00387.txt.bz2 On Tue, 17 May 2011 20:15:18 +0200, Keith Seitz wrote: > Is reverting dwarf2_physname better or worse than DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name? In which single case can be dwarf2_physname better than DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name? That's the question. dwarf2_physname is AFAIK to give the linkage name and DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name always matches that. Apparently the testsuite has regressions with demangled + canonicalized DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name so I am wrong but I do not understand why. > Using DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name will not pass cpexprs.exp without some > hacking; the demangled name will need to be re-parsed (to remove > typedefs DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name already has all the typedefs removed - it is the linkage name. > I really see this as an even bigger risk than keeping the current > code. And then there's constructors -- no version of GCC that I've > seen outputs DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name for ctors, so they would still > have to be computed in some way. Yes, I agree for ctors/dtors we should use the dwarf2_physname computation. Thanks, Jan