Re: [RFA] dwarf2_physname FINAL

[Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>]

On 03/23/2010 01:24 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:

> Would it be possible to KFAIL that?

I should think so... :-) If maintainers wish it so, it will be done.

>   <2><223>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
>       DW_AT_external    : 1
>       DW_AT_name        :<init>
>       DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name: _ZN5jmiscC1Ev
>       DW_AT_artificial  : 1
>       DW_AT_declaration : 1
>
> Is this to be expected?  Or should this be handled by the new code
> somewhere?

No, it's not. I have a patch for this, but I've noticed some other 
little java regressions (which are not tested by the test suite), so I 
am going to delay submitting my patch until I can get the problems all 
worked out.

> Also, I'm now seeing three failures in the new cpexprs.exp:
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: list base::overload(void)
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: setting breakpoint at base::overload(void)
> FAIL: gdb.cp/cpexprs.exp: continue to base::overload(void)
> apparently related to whether "const" needs to be specified when
> identifying an overloaded method.  I seem to recall some reference
> to this problem in one of the dwarf2_physname threads -- is this
> still an expected problem with the final patch?

Yeah, I meant to return to this, but got caught up in one thing or 
another. I will attempt to fix this (or XFAIL it) when I get the above 
Java issues sorted out.

Keith