Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PR symtab/17602] Fix arguments to symbol_name_cmp

[Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Nov 26 2014, Doug Evans wrote:

> diff --git a/gdb/linespec.c b/gdb/linespec.c
> index 5325702..35b0205 100644
> --- a/gdb/linespec.c
> +++ b/gdb/linespec.c
> @@ -982,7 +982,12 @@ iterate_name_matcher (const char *name, void *d)
>  {
>    const struct symbol_matcher_data *data = d;
>
> -  if (data->symbol_name_cmp (name, data->lookup_name) == 0)
> +  /* The order of arguments we pass to symbol_name_cmp is important as
> +     strcmp_iw, a typical value for symbol_name_cmp, only performs special
> +     processing of '(' to remove overload info on the first argument and not
> +     the second.  The first argument is what the user provided, the second
> +     argument is what came from partial syms / .gdb_index.  */
> +  if (data->symbol_name_cmp (data->lookup_name, name) == 0)
>      return 1; /* Expand this symbol's symbol table.  */
>    return 0; /* Skip this symbol.  */
>  }

This seems to cause a regression for the Ada testcase "operator_bp.exp":

> [...]
> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "+" (got interactive prompt)
> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "-" (got interactive prompt)
> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "*" (got interactive prompt)
> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "/" (got interactive prompt)
> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "mod" (got interactive prompt)
> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "rem" (got interactive prompt)
> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "**" (got interactive prompt)
> [...]

See https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-testers/2014-q4/msg00126.html

The problem occurs like this:

  (gdb) break "+"
  Function ""+"" not defined.
  Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) n
  (gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "+" (got interactive prompt) 

When reverting the patch, the test succeeds again.