Re: [RFA] dwarf2_physname

[Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com>]

Keith Seitz wrote:
> 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.

The proposal essentially renames DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name, without
saying very much about how it might be used or why some producers
or consumers might find it necessary.

> 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.

I've long had the opinion that DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name was unnecessary.
As far as I could tell, standard DWARF contains all of the information
which was obtained by parsing the linkage name.  The few special cases
seemed more contrived than persuasive.

-- 
Michael Eager	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077