From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31707 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2009 23:35:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 31699 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2009 23:35:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from shell4.BAYAREA.NET (HELO shell4.bayarea.net) (209.128.82.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:35:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 30818 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2009 16:34:59 -0700 Received: from 209-128-106-254.bayarea.net (HELO redwood.eagercon.com) (209.128.106.254) by shell4.bayarea.net with SMTP; 31 Aug 2009 16:34:58 -0700 Message-ID: <4A9C5E20.4090307@eagercon.com> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:35:00 -0000 From: Michael Eager User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090825) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] dwarf2_physname References: <4A9C358E.2050904@redhat.com> <4A9C54F6.1000909@eagercon.com> <4A9C5A66.7060609@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4A9C5A66.7060609@redhat.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/msg00602.txt.bz2 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