From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Berlin To: "Peter.Schauer" Cc: msnyder@cygnus.com, jimb@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix partial symbol lookups Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:44:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <200011161629.RAA06158@reisser.regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00206.html "Peter.Schauer" writes: > > > The previous version of lookup_partial_symbol (before your changes) would > > > have found both mangled and demangled names. > > > > Now this I take issue with. > > How could it possibly find demangled names, if it doesn't have access > > to them? > > lookup_partial_symbol didn't find demangled names before my patch on > > 10-12. It doesn't have the code to do so, as you pointed out yourself > > (because the SYMBOL_MATCHES_NAME is no better than the strcmp, since > > we have no access to demangled names), unless the symbol name was the > > demangled name, rather than the mangled name, which doesn't occur. > > Not true. > There were no demangled names in partial symbols from most symbol readers, > _except_ for the HP reader, which we are currently discussing, and which > I discovered rather late in the day as well. > Before your change, lookup_partial_symbol fell back to a linear search > if it didn't find the symbol and had the chance to find the demangled symbol > via SYMBOL_MATCHES_NAME during the linear search. I'll happily make it linear search on HPUX, as soon as HP confirms it's necessary. > > > > As a starter, the problems mentioned in > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00230.html > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00247.html > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00248.html > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00220.html > > > are still not addressed. > > > > The first one includes a patch, as soon as it's approved, it'll be > > applied. > > And which will have to be adapted to your patches. Which will mean more > work for me, now that I am responsible for fixing _your_ bug because _I_ > submitted the RFA, right ? No, I'll clean it up if you like. Assuming you don't want me to just revert all the 10-12 changes and be done with it. > > > The second one points out things this patch fixes. > > No, it contains an example which is not fixed after the infinite regression > gets fixed. Please read the message again and then try the example with > any combination of suggested fixes you like. It will not work. > I meant the patch I submitted, that is in the subject line ([RFA]: Fix partial symbol lookups) > > The third one is the same. > > No, it points out another problem with `maint check'. Have you ever tried it > with your patches ? Yes, I have. (gdb) maintenance check-symtabs During symbol reading, type qualifier 'const' ignored. During symbol reading, unsupported stack op: 'DW_OP_deref_size'. During symbol reading, type qualifier 'volatile' ignored. (gdb) > > > The fourth one has to do with makefile tweaking, so i have no clue > > what that has to do with anything. > > Sorry, typo, I meant > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00250.html > I've also submitted a patch for that one though. It is the easiest to fix, > and it seems that I will have to take care of that one as well ? As I said about the first patch, i'll take care of it, assuming you don't want me to just revert all the changes. --Dan