From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21023 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2009 23:19:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 21015 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2009 23:19:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:19:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7VNJ6ea026970; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:19:07 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7VNJ3hb031316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:19:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4A9C5A66.7060609@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:23:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Eager CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] dwarf2_physname References: <4A9C358E.2050904@redhat.com> <4A9C54F6.1000909@eagercon.com> In-Reply-To: <4A9C54F6.1000909@eagercon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00600.txt.bz2 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