From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24977 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2002 00:00:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24934 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2002 00:00:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bothner.com) (216.102.199.253) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2002 00:00:09 -0000 Received: from bothner.com (eureka.bothner.com [192.168.1.9]) by bothner.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0L01UM05079; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:01:30 -0800 Message-ID: <3C4B5A24.50504@bothner.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:00:00 -0000 From: Per Bothner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7+) Gecko/20020111 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch to robustify gnuv3_rtti_type References: <3C49D9DF.4040700@bothner.com> <20020119183848.A32307@nevyn.them.org> <3C4A0C1F.6070903@bothner.com> <20020119192000.A1028@nevyn.them.org> <3C4B2C01.2070701@bothner.com> <20020120155405.A3461@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00608.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Wait a second. Are you debugging Java or C++ here? Or are you > debugging a Java program and the C++ runtime, Yes, basically. The bug I'm currently working on is a bug in the run-time verifier (libjava/verify.cc). > and the same thing is > accessible as java::lang::Class and java.lang.Class? Yes, basically. The Class and Object classes are handled specially by the compiler, though I'm not sure that matters to the debugger. In general, we have gcj create the "definition" of classes; we also auto-generate C++ header files for the same classes so they can be accessed by C++, for writing "native" methods However, the Class class is special, in that the the C++ version is written by hand. In either case, we'd like gdb to realize that java::lang::Class and java.lang.Class are the same, which seems to require namespace support to do it properly. > Why do you currently emit java.lang.Class? Because is seemed the right thing to do, given gdb's lack of proper namespace support - we just treat "java.lang.Object" as an atomic name. This fixes some problems and breaks others. Also, gcj internally uses the fully-qualfied name "java.lang.Class" internally. Changing this will take some work, but if it will give us proper namespace-aware debugging I'm willing to do it. -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/per/