From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1922 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2003 22:43:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1915 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 22:43:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 22:43:24 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2BMhJm18780; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:43:19 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] annotate blocks with C++ namespace information References: <20030311171133.GA3362@nevyn.them.org> <20030311212313.GA18680@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030311212313.GA18680@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:23:13 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:14:16PM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > In this case Stanford is not contributing the code; contribution is a > copyright related action, and they never had the copyright. Fair enough. >> Yes; it should be easy enough to rewrite, say, find_last_component >> using cp_find_first_component. The only reason why I didn't do >> that (other than laziness) was that then I'd want to go figure out >> a situation where find_last_component actually gets called, to make >> sure I didn't make a boneheaded mistake while doing so, and I >> didn't feel like doing that. But I'll definitely add a FIXME >> comment about that? > OK. find_last_component gets called for dealing with stub methods, if > I recall correctly why I wrote it. Yes, that's right. And all I know about them is that I just spent an afternoon investigating a bug dealing with them, didn't succeed in fixing the bug, and felt dirty afterwards. >> Do any demanglers put in spaces after 'operator'? I hope not... > I thought one of them did, but I might have been mistaken. You could easily be right: I haven't done a lot of GCC v2 checking. I'll look into that, and, if so, add a guard for a possible extra space in cp_find_first_component. (Otherwise, the gdb_assert in cp_find_first_component could leave people unable to load C++ files with certain constructs mixing templates and operators.) Not that there's any justification for having the different demanglers producing different output, but that's another issue entirely... David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu