From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Jim Blandy Cc: Paul Hilfinger , drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Introduce notion of "search name" Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:21:00 -0000 Message-id: <40AB7B57.8090605@gnu.org> References: <20040412082254.97735F2E7C@nile.gnat.com> <20040429103706.4793BF2BFF@nile.gnat.com> <20040429211458.GB27523@nevyn.them.org> <20040430084538.ECDE1F2E1C@nile.gnat.com> <20040430134955.GA15786@nevyn.them.org> <20040503084937.439F4F2C0A@nile.gnat.com> <20040511194843.GA15952@nevyn.them.org> <20040512105959.806E6F2DE4@nile.gnat.com> <20040512132708.GA25122@nevyn.them.org> <40A2313E.1080100@gnu.org> <20040513093023.9718CF2B55@nile.gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00571.html Paul Hilfinger writes: I am actually sympathetic to Andrew's ideas here, since with some version of the extra abstraction he suggests, I could avoid all permanent storage for demangled names. I think generalizing names is probably the way to go. Certainly C++ needs names with some structure; using strings there is silly. I'm not convinced it can be made quite as simple as Andrew says, but I could be wrong about that. Just like the frame, arch, and regcache code, this won't be easy or simple - it will take multiple iterations and true long term commitment to GDB. What we do need to do is recognize the real value in perusing this strategy (screwing down and better defining interfaces), and that it is a strategy we can't afford to postpone. Can we do that? Andrew