From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id wICoJd3otmMO+A8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:12:29 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 980BB1E222; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:12:29 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=uM39jRjc; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57AFE1E112 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:12:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEF03858C31 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:12:28 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BEEF03858C31 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1672931548; bh=hwdUw2Li0Rv9BRDOgXs9U20kZrxbHaJ1/VNcdAEu+XQ=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=uM39jRjcCEhwHXfGw8yIEXwR6XDBepVzeClKAtaq9CWbRD8x9JkciafqQSIef6Wru a8osg76obyikI73Xf3XdbTIYGBVEOA+FrPoPP/vwTIzQDTDgLgm5yN9ccVDACCmgAA raz5EhdkxHrfydycIYTraDsXUx/2g5Uf0tCTvVmk= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4A7D3858D28 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:12:09 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A4A7D3858D28 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pDRuZ-0004DP-L4; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:12:07 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pDRuX-0006ZZ-IM; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:12:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 17:12:20 +0200 Message-Id: <83o7rdvwvf.fsf@gnu.org> To: Christian Biesinger Cc: tom@tromey.com, simark@simark.ca, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luis.machado@arm.com In-Reply-To: (message from Christian Biesinger on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 09:49:14 -0500) Subject: Re: Two observations using GDB 13 snapshot References: <83h6xugc5v.fsf@gnu.org> <835ye7e9jw.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6xrks77.fsf@tromey.com> <83mt7idacj.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsd4elb2.fsf@tromey.com> <83o7rs4qmg.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz84dasj.fsf@tromey.com> <835ydw20bw.fsf@gnu.org> <87wn6bbi5m.fsf@tromey.com> <83sfgz8m9i.fsf@gnu.org> <87o7rnb0ya.fsf@tromey.com> <83a6368chf.fsf@gnu.org> <87k02aaxc8.fsf@tromey.com> <83wn6a6n21.fsf@gnu.org> <587b899f-0f93-530a-7313-d4e1f9e501b9@simark.ca> <835ydt6jzw.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn63z81w.fsf@gnu.org> <46d7fd4b-d5f0-0007-3e88-20345e0e0584@simark.ca> <831qoayxuu.fsf@gnu.org> <878rii9bg3.fsf@tromey.com> <83fscpxxom.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Christian Biesinger > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 09:49:14 -0500 > Cc: Tom Tromey , simark@simark.ca, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, > luis.machado@arm.com > > > If it's okay for GDB to compare case-insensitively only ASCII > > characters, then is the above patch mature enough to go to the gdb-13 > > branch? > > If https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#mangle.name is > up-to-date (?), then > "This ABI does not yet specify a mangling for identifiers containing > characters outside of _A-Za-z0-9." > > On the other hand, if > https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2603-rust-symbol-name-mangling-v0.html#punycode-vs-utf-8 > is to be believed, GCC/Clang/MSVC do use UTF-8 for symbol names. But I > don't think strcasecmp on Windows uses UTF-8? No, I think Windows would use UTF-16 instead.