From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29679 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2004 16:45:38 -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 29650 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2004 16:45:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2004 16:45:36 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 78296CE26; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:45:32 -0800 (PST) To: Hilfinger@otisco.mckusick.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] Add SYMBOL_SET_LINKAGE_NAME References: <200402180049.i1I0n4HR018124@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <200402180811.i1I8BnC11365@otisco.McKusick.COM> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:45:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200402180811.i1I8BnC11365@otisco.McKusick.COM> (Paul N. Hilfinger's message of "Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:11:49 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00516.txt.bz2 On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:11:49 -0800, "Paul N. Hilfinger" said: > I admit that I have never been clear on the precise limits of > "linkage name". The linker DOES see these things (else how do they > find their way into the executable file?) although it's true that it > does not "link" them as it does for regular symbols. > After watching you struggle manfully through a number of terminology > changes, I was a little reluctant to suggest the introduction of > still another concept, so I stuck with "linkage name". The point is > that WHATEVER you call Ada's mangled type names, they are NOT what > is written in the source code (so can't be "natural names") and they > ARE the raw names extracted from the executable's debugging > information. Hmm; they also happen to be what I proposed calling > "search names"---i.e., the names used internally to search by. We > could use the opportunity to introduce search names and make this > "SET_SEARCH_NAME". Just a thought. I was actually having similar thoughts on the way into work this morning. Maybe what I should focus on first is trying to establish the notion that, when calling lookup_symbol, the name you pass in always has to be in the appropriate form: in particular, lookup_symbol would never try to demangle a name on the fly. In the non-Ada world, that would mean that we always search by natural name; but it would pave the way for you to introduce your SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME concept. That way, SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME would have a clear meaning (even if nothing else would :-) ): it would be the name that you pass to lookup_symbol when trying to search for that symbol. Does that make sense to you? If so, I'll start generating appropriate patches. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com