Re: [RFC]: java inferior function call support

[David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com>]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:03:31 -0500, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com> said:

> There a few differences between Java and C++ that require handling.
> First of all, the Java debug info for a member has a fully qualified
> name including prototype.  There is an open bugzilla bug against gcj
> for this, however, I think some rethinking may be required.

I'm not thrilled with fixing this in GDB instead of in GCJ.  Including
the fully qualified name means that, to get just the member name, we
have to do some parsing, which we'd like to get away from.  Treating
Java differently from C++ increases the number of special cases in
GDB; given the almost completely unmaintained state of the Java code
in GDB, that makes me very nervous.  (I don't supposed you're
interesting in being a GDB Java maintainer?)  Also, at least as far as
the GCC Bugzilla report says, GCJ's debug info isn't consistent -
sometimes it gives the fully qualified name, sometimes it just gives
some sort of weird name which doesn't make sense at all.

David Carlton
carlton@kealia.com