Re: [RFA] dwarf2_physname

[Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>]

On 08/31/2009 03:55 PM, Michael Eager wrote:

> Does this mean that (eventually) the DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name attribute
> will not be needed by GDB?

That is exactly what it is intended to do. MIPS_linkage_name is not 
needed in any case I've been able to invent on my 
archer-keiths-expr-cumulative branch, and that branch has MUCH tougher 
C++ tests than FSF gdb does.

> There was a significant amount of discussion about whether this was
> really needed. There were a couple examples where it might provide
> information which was not otherwise available or where it compensated
> for linkers which didn't support weak externs.

This is the first I've heard of this -- thank you for pointing it out. 
My cursory reading of the proposal leaves me torn about whether this 
really changes anything. I've clearly had better results WITHOUT 
DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name than with it, but I can imagine how having 
DW_AT_linkage_name for certain special situations might be useful.

Perhaps this might just be the beginning of using DW_AT_linkage_name for 
these "special" situations, as opposed to assuming that every object has 
a DW_AT_linkage_name. I don't know. I guess time will tell.

Keith