From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18725 invoked by alias); 21 May 2011 20:34:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 18641 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2011 20:34:26 -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; Sat, 21 May 2011 20:34:08 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7793110E3C; Sat, 21 May 2011 20:34:07 +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 47FAE1080E; Sat, 21 May 2011 20:34:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QNssA-000720-7R; Sat, 21 May 2011 16:34:06 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 20:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: The future of dwarf2_physname Message-ID: <20110521203406.GA26717@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4DD44983.7060406@redhat.com> <20110519205943.GA7479@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00503.txt.bz2 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