From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13876 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2013 21:14:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 13867 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Feb 2013 21:14:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:14:14 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1LLECnu020838 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:14:12 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1LLEAC8011174 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:14:11 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] fix disassemble foo::bar::~bar References: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:13:56 -0800") Message-ID: <87sj4p9xp9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00575.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> I happened to try this and noticed it failing with Doug> "name of destructor must equal name of class". Doug> This is because destructor_name_p doesn't handle foo::bar Doug> for the type's name. Thanks for finding this. Doug> + char *cp = strchr (type_name, '<'); I wonder whether this kind of parsing is sufficient. It seems like there could be confounding cases. I wonder what would happen if we just removed destructor_name_p, or alternatively made it work by examining the type's function fields, looking for a match. If you've considered the various error cases in your analysis, then I have no problem with your patch. Tom