Re: The future of dwarf2_physname

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 01:25:49PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> DWARF 4 added some stuff to help with this, but I think g++ hasn't yet
> caught up.  What problems do you know about?

It's been five years since I was really working on this, but this...

> Also there is:
> 
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33861
> 
> I don't think I totally understand the issues with this one, but the
> DWARF just has an address, so presumably in some scenarios we can wind
> up with an odd canonical name (if we can't find the name corresponding
> to that address).

... is a pretty good example (I don't think it's the only kind, but I
don't have anything more to hand).  You can't reliably go from an
address to a name and get the same thing the compiler got.

I think there's a way (for function templates?  parameters to
templated functions?) to get floating point constants mangled, too.

> It seems to me that if the DWARF spec is incomplete, then that is an
> argument in favor of either (1) fixing DWARF and g++ or (2) keeping
> DW_AT_linkage_name in g++ -- but not just dropping linkage-name, as that
> would cause user-visible regressions.

Completely agree.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz