Re: [rfa] delete macro SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME

[David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:30:24 -0500, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> said:
> David Carlton writes:

>> This is the first part of my plan to clean up symbol accessors.  It
>> deletes the macro SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME: that macro is only used in
>> two places in one function, and is easy to replace by an equivalent
>> use of asm_demangle, SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME, and SYMBOL_NAME.  Given
>> that I'd like to use the name SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME for something
>> else, I'd like to get rid of its current use.

> can you expand a bit?

As I posted in
<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-01/msg00188.html>, I really
think that it's important to clean up GDB's use of various names.  I
want to make it as easy as possible for people to get at either the
source code names of symbols or the linkage names of symbols, and to
make it clear when they mean the one or the other.  For the linkage
names, the best macro name that I've come up with is
SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME: so a not-to-distant step in this process will be
to introduce a macro SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME whose definition is exactly
the same as the definition of SYMBOL_NAME, but with the extra semantic
benefit that users of that macro will promise that they've actually
thought about the situation and decided that they really want the
linkage name instead of the source code name.

But to do that, I have to get rid of the existing macro
SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME.  (Or else think up another name, but here getting
rid of the existing macro seems preferable.)

I'm certainly open to different names for these macros, if you'd
prefer something else.  (Though I do think that getting rid of the
current SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME wouldn't be a bad idea, given how little
it's used.)

>> if (symbol)
>> {
>> name_location = BLOCK_START (SYMBOL_BLOCK_VALUE (symbol));
>> -      if (do_demangle)
>> +      if (do_demangle || asm_demangle)

> why this change? I must be missing something.

>> name_temp = SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME (symbol);
>> else
>> -	name_temp = SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (symbol);
>> +	name_temp = SYMBOL_NAME (symbol);
>> }

> this one is ok.

The current SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (that I'm getting rid of) is
equivalent, I think, to

asm_demangle ? SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME : SYMBOL_NAME.

So the old code

  if (do_demangle)
    name_temp = SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME (symbol);
  else
    name_temp = SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (symbol);

becomes

  if (do_demangle)
    name_temp = SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME (symbol);
  else
    {
      if (asm_demangle)
        name_temp = SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME (symbol);
      else
        name_temp = SYMBOL_NAME (symbol);
    }

And then I combined the first two if statements into an or statement.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu