From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25227 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2003 01:14:42 -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 25125 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2003 01:14:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2003 01:14:41 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19hfY7-0001VF-9M; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:14:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Geoffrey Keating Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Two possible function stabs patches Message-ID: <20030730011438.GA5720@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Geoffrey Keating , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <288F3C82-C22A-11D7-B17B-0030657EA24A@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <288F3C82-C22A-11D7-B17B-0030657EA24A@apple.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:07:15PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > Oops! Forgot to attach the actual patches. Fixed below. > > > OK, so I have not one, but two patches! > > The first one is less interesting. It uses the language's name for the > function, unless it's a C++ function, in which case it uses the > (mangled) assembler name. It'll give a stab like > > .stabs "__ZN3bar3fooEv:F(0,1)",36,0,2,__ZN3bar3fooEv > or > .stabs "foo:F(0,1)",36,0,2,foo.11 This would probably work, but I think it's less useful. > The second one uses the 'printable name' for the function. That is, > for C it's just the name, and for C++ it's the demangled version of its > name. I am not at all sure it'll work, because it gives stabs like: > > .stabs "int bar::foo():F(0,1)",36,0,2,__ZN3bar3fooEv > > which I suspect can't be parsed. This won't work. You're right; it's unparseable. Could you manage to generate "bar::foo:F(0,1)" instead? GDB should handle that correctly as-is. > Could someone help me test these? It needs a machine that can use > stabs and on which the GDB testsuite doesn't give too many false > positives. i386-linux can do this. I'd offer to do it, but only if Michael's too busy - his test setup is vastly more thorough than I could manage. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer