From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28043 invoked by alias); 28 May 2002 17:37:48 -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 28031 invoked from network); 28 May 2002 17:37:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO branoic) (12.44.186.158) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 May 2002 17:37:46 -0000 Received: from drow by branoic with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Ckup-0003eJ-00 for ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:37:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb bugs showing while working on libcwd Message-ID: <20020528173746.GA13975@branoic.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20020524184234.A22858@alinoe.com> <20020525033302.A20587@alinoe.com> <20020525014055.GA27211@branoic.them.org> <20020527034255.A25457@alinoe.com> <20020527060329.GA5078@branoic.them.org> <20020527144220.A16085@alinoe.com> <20020527180451.GA5523@branoic.them.org> <20020528020101.A12154@alinoe.com> <20020528081656.GB5390@branoic.them.org> <20020528145020.A17748@alinoe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020528145020.A17748@alinoe.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00308.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:50:20PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:16:56AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > By the way, if that includes a v3 demangler - there are three failures > > in the demangler testsuite on v3 for functions taking function pointers > > that I can't wrap my head around... :) > > Would replacing __cxa_demangle in libiberty with a demangler > that does v3 demangling (and only v3 demangling) do the job? > I am not familiar with this libiberty interface that seems > to support a dozen different mangling styles. The v3 code is completely separate; it's off in cp-demangle.c rather than cplus-dem.c (or reversed). The original demangler just calls the v3 demangler when necessary, so it doesn't come in to this at all. I was just hoping someone more familiar than I with the mangling scheme could look at the existing one and figure out where the shortcoming is... -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer