From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22106 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2002 19:41:55 -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 22098 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2002 19:41:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2002 19:41:55 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g92Jfk801555; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:41:46 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Search for symbol names the same way they're hashed. References: <200210020329.g923TE702388@zenia.red-bean.com> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: 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: 2002-10/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 On 02 Oct 2002 14:18:51 -0500, Jim Blandy said: > David Carlton writes: >> 1) This concept of 'a name that is as demangled as possible' is a >> pretty important one and occurs in multiple places in GDB's sources, > Yeah, I think we need something like that, too. > How about SYMBOL_DEMANGLEDEST_NAME? Um. Um indeed. > I just did a quick survey of the uses of SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME. Thanks! I'd been meaning to do that, but I hadn't gotten around to it yet. Also, somebody should look at all uses of SYMBOL_DEMANGLED_NAME to see which ones are part of a chunk of code that could be replaced by SYMBOL_BEST_NAME. > They all fall into two categories: > - printing symbol names, and > - sort comparison functions. > The first usage is exactly correct: the way a symbol prints should > respect the current demangling setting. > The second usage seems wrong to me: if you sort under one demangling > setting, but then search under a different one, well, ... duh. Right. That's exactly what I was afraid of: we should make it clear that SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME is for external use only. (Both by comments and by renaming it, as you suggest below.) > The source code name of a symbol does not depend depend on the current > demangling setting; the way it should be printed obviously does. So > I'd suggest: > - changing the first category of uses to use SYMBOL_PRINT_NAME, > a new macro which will be defined just like the current > SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME (or David's defn below looks nice, too), and > - defining a new SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME which does what David's > SYMBOL_BEST_NAME does above. I agree. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu