From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16509 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 21:35:35 -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 16499 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 21:35:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 21:35:34 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1KLZVG16642; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:35:31 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] more lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms futzing References: <15957.13747.748204.408563@localhost.redhat.com> <20030220211642.GA24294@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030220211642.GA24294@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: 2003-02/txt/msg00501.txt.bz2 On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:16:42 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 12:57:37PM -0800, David Carlton wrote: >> (Incidentally, I'm curious if Daniel considers the patch in >> symtab/1070 to still be active: if so, please review the e-mail >> discussion that Daniel and I had about this. I actually have more >> to say about that if you're considering approving that patch.) > Yes, I never withdrew it; that's why I forwarded it to GNATS. Ah, I wasn't sure if you'd forwarded it or if Andrew and his nefarious gang of shell scripts had forwarded it. >> 1) A patch to correct a slight bug that remains in >> lookup_partial_symbol. Basically, partial symbols are sorted via >> strcmp but we want to use strcmp_iw as our matching criterion; >> strcmp and strcmp_iw aren't _quite_ suitable to be used together in >> this way. > Should they be sorted via strcmp_iw instead? That would be the obvious thing to do; unfortunately, strcmp_iw doesn't define an ordering. (It defines an asymmetric equality relationship, but doesn't give you a way to order names that aren't strcmp_iw.) So you need to come up with an ordering function that can be passed to qsort that is compatible with strcmp_iw's quirks. Not too hard; I've done it, I just need to submit it as a patch. It'll happen as soon as I've submitted my first namespace patch, no later than Monday. (And, as you said elsewhere, we should just hash partial symbols, like we do with everything else, but that takes more work; eventually, one of us will find some time to do it.) David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu