From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3077 invoked by alias); 26 May 2003 10:43:07 -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 3038 invoked from network); 26 May 2003 10:43:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO otisco.McKusick.COM) (209.31.233.190) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 May 2003 10:43:04 -0000 Received: (from hilfingr@localhost) by otisco.McKusick.COM (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4QAgxc07019; Mon, 26 May 2003 03:42:59 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:43:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200305261042.h4QAgxc07019@otisco.McKusick.COM> From: "Paul N. Hilfinger" To: drow@mvista.com CC: carlton@bactrian.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com In-reply-to: <20030524143554.GA14905@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sat, 24 May 2003 10:35:55 -0400) Subject: Re: [rfc] lookups with natural/linkage names Reply-to: Hilfinger@otisco.mckusick.com References: <200305240811.h4O8BJu10644@otisco.McKusick.COM> <20030524143554.GA14905@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2 > > What exactly is the reasoning that says that such lookups needn't consider > > local (or rather non-static/global) symbols? > > Normally, symbols with a linkage name (i.e. that appear in the minsym > table) are only global or static. Does Ada have an exception to this? Not exactly, but actually I am not specifically talking about Ada here. The equation linkage name == minsym name worries me a little. The only alterative names to linkage names are natural names (I'll ignore print names for now). Therefore, the only possible kind of mangled name is a minsym name. Are nested function names ever mangled? We seldom consider nested functions, because they don't occur in official C/C++, but they do occur in GCC's extensions (and in Pascal and Ada). On IRIX, using Dwarf-2, nested function names do NOT appear in the minimal symbols (whereas on Linux, they do). I hope you see why this makes me slightly nervous. Now, it is true that Ada mangles more stuff (in particular, type names), but since we never look up demangled names, this is actually somewhat less of an issue for us. Paul Hilfinger