Re: [RFC v2][PR symtab/30520] gdb/symtab: fix the gdb.cp/anon-struct test

[Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>]

>>>>> "Dmitry" == Dmitry Neverov <dmitry.neverov@jetbrains.com> writes:

Tom> Dmitry> The symbol_name_match_type::SEARCH_NAME cannot be used because
Tom> Dmitry> demangle_for_lookup_info doesn't initialize a demangled name
Tom> Dmitry> for it which makes a subsequent name matching to fail.

Tom> I don't think I understand this comment, but anyway shouldn't this patch
Tom> simply be folded into an earlier one in the series?

Dmitry> Sorry, this is the first time I submit a series. I've noticed a
Dmitry> test failure after I sent patches and wasn't sure how to update
Dmitry> them. What should I do in such a situation? Create [RFC v3]?

In this particular case, since the patch is updating an earlier patch in
the series, what I would probably do is combine the two patches -- and
add a comment at the spot explaining why FULL is used rather than
SEARCH_NAME.

Tom> I read through these and they seem basically reasonable to me -- in line
Tom> with what I was hoping for.  There are some minor formatting issues.

Dmitry> Sorry, again. I've tried to follow the code style as closely as I
Dmitry> can, but have missed something. I will try to be more careful
Dmitry> next time. If there is some formatter I can run - please let me
Dmitry> know.

Sadly there's no formatter.  We've tried but haven't found one we can
all agree to.

The main stuff to look out for, IME, is:

* braces on their own lines (like the patch we're replying to has an
  issue with this in the context)

* operators after a newline, not before

* no trailing "("

* space before "("

Tom> You didn't mention what testing you did, so I am curious about that.

Dmitry> I've done only manual testing in the project where I can
Dmitry> reproduce the problem with slow symbol lookup. I'm not sure how
Dmitry> to write an automatic test checking that CU is not expanded
Dmitry> unnecessarily. Are there any existing tests checking that?

Hmm... I think maybe gdb.dwarf2/debug-names-missing-cu.exp does this,
after a fashion.

For a new test you probably wouldn't need the DWARF assembler stuff, you
could just translate a simple test into testsuite form.

Anyway what I was really asking is if you ran the gdb testsuite.

Thanks again for this series.  Also, did I ask about / did we get
started on copyright assignment paperwork?

thanks,
Tom