Re: [rfa] delete 'force_return' from lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms

David Carlton
2002-12-20T20:18:55Z

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:03:59 -0500, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> said:
> David Carlton writes:
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:37:33 -0500, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> said:
>>> David Carlton writes:

>>>> Suggestion #2: Maybe we should put this particular patch on hold and
>>>> come to some sort of consensus as to how to deal with
>>>> mangled/demangled names. I'll post an RFC for that later today.

>>> Ok, whatever seems easier for you. Although I think we can try to
>>> fix the parameter problem, at least, and see what breaks.

>> I started to write an RFC, but actually I think now isn't the best
>> time for that: it'll affect GDB fairly broadly, and enough people
>> are away on holidays that I don't want to propose that right now.
>> So, in early January, I'll see if I can get some sort of consensus
>> towards the right way to approach this.

> Alternatively you can post something and wait a bit. Maybe MichaelC
> will put it through his test harness.

I think that this issue is comprehensive enough both to deserve an RFC
and to require a series of patches to resolve. (Maybe even another
branch...)

>> Here's a revised version of the patch: it's exactly the same as the
>> previous one, except that it changes the call to lookup_symbol in
>> search_symbols to call lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms instead. Tested on
>> i686-pc-linux-gnu/GCC 3.1/DWARF 2 (Michael Chastain has been nagging
>> me to give such info, but don't worry, I always test my patches :-) );
>> no new regressions.

> Since all this code was written when stabs was king, maybe we'll find
> differences with stabs testing. Also, given that as you say, people
> are on vacation, the entropy of gdb should be a bit lower these days,
> and if something breaks, it's probably because of this change, so it
> should be more easily trackable. :-)

> OK.

Great. Then I'll commit it now, and I'll hold off on my next patch in
this series (which this was setting up ground work for) until some
time in January, so that Michael's tests have had a chance to see it
and other people will be back from vacation and had a chance to run
into it. That way, it will be easy to back out if necessary.

And I'll start working on a function "lookup_symbol_minsym" which
tries to find the symbol associated to a minsym: that would probably
be the best way to handle that call to lookup_symbol from within
search_symbols that we're replacing by a call to
lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms. I think it will be useful elsewhere, as
well: when I skimmed all the callers to lookup_symbol, I remember
finding some other places that wanted to match a symbol to a specific
mangled name, and they probably got that mangled name from a minsym.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu