From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18448 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2013 21:54:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 18408 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jan 2013 21:54:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:54:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0HLs3LN003624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:54:03 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-19.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.19]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0HLrxjl030442 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:54:02 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:54:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: fix PR 12707 Message-ID: <20130117215358.GA18048@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <87r4lno936.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130115172149.GA21127@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87pq13biy8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pq13biy8.fsf@fleche.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: 2013-01/txt/msg00381.txt.bz2 On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:25:35 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote: > I agree in principle, but I think the current approach to doing this is > at least odd, and probably unintentional and incorrect. I agree but in practice it works. > Changing other symbols to include the return type also seems difficult. I do not see why. There exists no demangled name with the return type anywhere for normal non-template functions. > The proposed change means that a breakpoint could still be set, just not > including the return type. It cannot be set by copy-pasting the symbol name from nm or similar tools. The data structures could contain both names - with the return type and without the return type - so that GDB does match both. Thanks, Jan