From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23509 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2001 17:01:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23413 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2001 17:01:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2001 17:01:24 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16C1uP-0000O0-00 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2001 12:02:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 09:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: RFC: Formatting of type output Message-ID: <20011206120205.A1278@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 Right now, we get as much as we can from demangled names when we print classes. Fine for stabs, but for dwarf and (say) constructors, we don't have a demangled name to use. We can print the methods using just their types, from the debug info. We have plenty of information for doing that. That means that, regrettably, they are formatted differently; it is closer to the v2 demangler than to the v3 demangler, but different from both (classes get prefixed by "class" even in C++, for example). Does anything mechanical depend on the format of type output, besides our testsuite? Does anyone have any radically strong feelings about how it should be formatted? I believe that it should at least be consistent with itself, and the only possible way to achieve that is to use the type information at all times. It'll require some cleanups to the involved code (for instance, lookup_opaque_type currently kills qualifiers! Patch later this week when I have a moment) but will actually simplify the testsuite quite a bit (since we will not have to cope with multiple demanglers, only multiple class layouts). Similarly, does anyone prefer to have vtbl and vbase pointers explicitly printed? It seems cleaner to me to suppress them, and perhaps offer another way to print them explicitly. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer