Re: RFC: fix PR 12707

Jan Kratochvil
2013-01-17T21:54:10Z

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:25:35 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I agree in principle, but I think the current approach to doing this is
> at least odd, and probably unintentional and incorrect.

I agree but in practice it works.

> Changing other symbols to include the return type also seems difficult.

I do not see why. There exists no demangled name with the return type
anywhere for normal non-template functions.

> The proposed change means that a breakpoint could still be set, just not
> including the return type.

It cannot be set by copy-pasting the symbol name from nm or similar tools.

The data structures could contain both names - with the return type and
without the return type - so that GDB does match both.

Thanks,
Jan