From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26730 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2014 23:09:16 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 26637 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jan 2014 23:09:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qe0-f53.google.com Received: from mail-qe0-f53.google.com (HELO mail-qe0-f53.google.com) (209.85.128.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 23:09:14 +0000 Received: by mail-qe0-f53.google.com with SMTP id t7so5057760qeb.40 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:09:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.219.5 with SMTP id hs5mr12566081qcb.9.1389395352062; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.195.196 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:09:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87vbxr4jmk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <87zjn47ref.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87vbxr4jmk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 23:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Fix for D demangling in GDB From: Iain Buclaw To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 On 10 January 2014 21:22, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Iain" == Iain Buclaw writes: > > Tom> It's also worth noting that with a bit more work you could push the D > Tom> demangler into libiberty (see ada_demangle there) and then get > Tom> demangling from "nm" and the other binutils. > > Iain> That sounds like a good plan. I'll keep a note to get round to do that. > > Just FYI - I'm not sure if you know this or not, but libiberty is > canonically maintained in the GCC tree, so if you do this, it has to be > submitted there first. Then it will be merged (either by me, or by > whoever else seems to be doing (semi-)automated merges) into > binutils-gdb.git. So, it's a little bit of a pain. > Incidentally, I have a assignment form for GCC that has been sitting in my inbox waiting to be signed and sent off. This will probably give me an excuse to get round to do that. I've ported this demangler over to libiberty, changing obstack -> string where appropriate. Whilst happy at the result, I think I'll wait until I've finished off demangling D templates. Which is the only part of demangling where things get a bit hairy (and also why I chose to move demangling in a separate file). > Iain> This was copied from cp-demangle.exp. I believe it is written that > Iain> way so that all demangle tests are ran, rather than stopping at the > Iain> first error? > > The C++ one only works proc-by-proc. If a test fails with a Tcl error > -- which btw isn't the same as just an ordinary failure, those don't > cause particular problems -- then it will run the subsequent procs. > Your test file only has a single proc; and anyway I'm guessing that code > in the C++ test is not useful anyway. I think dropping it from your > patch is safe. > OK, thanks for the explaination. Regards Iain.