From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23377 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2002 04:05:41 -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 23369 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2002 04:05:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 04:05:40 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E9E3C41; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:03:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CA29627.5040900@cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:05:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christopher Faylor Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: strip stdcall suffixes under cygwin References: <20020327233525.1164E5EA11@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3CA25A74.6050807@cygnus.com> <3CA27888.2070407@cygnus.com> <20020328034207.GI1617@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00571.txt.bz2 > Hmm (yes, I know, it's bad form to follow up your own e-mail), is this >>an attribute of the object file's symbol information and hence can be >>set by examining that info? If that is true there is no need to >>multi-arch it. > > > I'm not sure that I entirely understand the question but what this patch > is dealing with is the fact that on Windows function symbols sometimes > have a @n attached to them. 'n' is, as far as I know, never anything > other than a number. The only time that a function looks like this is > when it is defined with the stdcall (and possibly fastcall) attribute. It is just that new macro that is a problem. New target dependant macros/methods need to be configured at run time. > So, the information could be derived at configure time, at least. It's > purely a windows-specific thing though. I don't think that there is any > other identifying information in the object file that would mark this as > a stdcall other than the addition of a '@' to the function name. Would the executable file's format (MS PE?) identify the executable as belonging to windows? enjoy, Andrew