From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15303 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2004 22:35:55 -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 15296 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2004 22:35:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2004 22:35:54 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3326080008E; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:35:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4060BBCA.3040205@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:35:00 -0000 From: Jeff Johnston User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: java inferior function call support References: <40608A03.1070808@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00541.txt.bz2 David Carlton wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:03:31 -0500, Jeff Johnston 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.