From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16226 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2011 20:12:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 16217 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2011 20:12:07 -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, 07 Jun 2011 20:11:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p57KBllw017045 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:11:47 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-113-49.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.49]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p57KBjoX019287 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:11:47 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p57KBigK029918; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:11:44 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p57KBhN0029915; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 22:11:43 +0200 Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:12:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] 12266 (typedef'd parameters) revisited again - what should go for gdb-7.3? Message-ID: <20110607201143.GA10923@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <4DE96F46.5010509@redhat.com> <20110605132815.GA26101@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110605132815.GA26101@host1.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00101.txt.bz2 On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:28:15 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 01:33:26 +0200, Keith Seitz wrote: > > Of course, it is still possible that I've neglected something along > > the line. > > This patch crashes for me on: You have said off-list you have a fix but you still run the real-world .debug files regression tests on top of it. I believe the replace_typedefs part (DEMANGLE_COMPONENT_* typedef replacements) should be cross-checked against `set debug check-physname on' which I guess hasn't been done yet. This patch fixes on its own PR 12506 stated as a blocker for: http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/GDB_7.3_Release The question (at least for me) is now which parts of this patch should go for 7.3 and which only for 7.4+: It can be split into the parts before before: 1/4: changes cp-name-parser.y to not use shared memory. 2/4: differences between print names and "linkage names" (physnames). 3/4: cp_canonicalize_no_typedefs to decode_variable and decode_compound 4/4: tests for this new feature. PR 12506 is I believe fixed by 2/4. But for compilers featuring DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name (=G++) it is fixed also by the more general: Re: [patch] Follow DW_AT_linkage_name for methods #2 http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00040.html And I believe I could still find a countercase where DW_AT_linkage_name is more correct than the current physname code. ctors/dtors do not have DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name but for class based naming (C::C or C::~C) one can drop to the minimal symbols (the fallback needs to work even for other cases): [patch 1/2] physname reg.: linespec minsym fallback http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-06/msg00079.html and one IMO cannot use linespec to refer to ctors/dtors (only to regular methods) during variable base naming (var.C or var.~C) - where the minsym fallback is not applicable and where decode_compound could be useful. The 3/4 is a new feature for PR 12266. GDB could never do `break f(typedefparam)', I do not think it needs to go for 7.3 so late. Thanks, Jan