Re: [RFC]: java inferior function call support

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>]

David Carlton wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:03:31 -0500, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com> said:
> 
> 
>>There a few differences between Java and C++ that require handling.
>>First of all, the Java debug info for a member has a fully qualified
>>name including prototype.  There is an open bugzilla bug against gcj
>>for this, however, I think some rethinking may be required.
> 
> 
> I'm not thrilled with fixing this in GDB instead of in GCJ.  Including
> the fully qualified name means that, to get just the member name, we
> have to do some parsing, which we'd like to get away from.  Treating
> Java differently from C++ increases the number of special cases in
> GDB; given the almost completely unmaintained state of the Java code
> in GDB, that makes me very nervous.  (I don't supposed you're
> interesting in being a GDB Java maintainer?)  Also, at least as far as
> the GCC Bugzilla report says, GCJ's debug info isn't consistent -
> sometimes it gives the fully qualified name, sometimes it just gives
> some sort of weird name which doesn't make sense at all.
> 
> David Carlton
> carlton@kealia.com
> 

I am not advocating that gcj is correct.

However, this problem (gcc bugzilla bug 6587) has been open since May of 2003. 
How long does gdb suggest end-users should wait to debug their code? :)

I am perfectly willing to put a FIXME statement that when gcc finally gets 
around to fixing this problem, the code can be dropped.  The change in question 
is certainly not harmful, nor complex to maintain or understand, and activates 
only if debugging Java.  Without it, gdb cannot do anything but sit on its 
hands.  You also have a question about what to do with older compiled gcj code 
even once a gcj fix is made.

-- Jeff J.