From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24405 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2003 15:06:19 -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 24398 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2003 15:06:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2003 15:06:18 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AOelb-000078-V1; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:06:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: carlton@kealia.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, ian@wasabisystems.com Subject: Re: C++/Java regressions Message-ID: <20031125150615.GA379@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , carlton@kealia.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, ian@wasabisystems.com References: <20031125144950.9E1EC4B40A@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031125144950.9E1EC4B40A@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 09:49:50AM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote: > Good morning, > > I see the same regressions that David does. This happened in all > my gcc-3 configurations. If you want a specific configuration: > > target = native, host = i686-pc-linux-gnu, osversion = red-hat-8.0 > gdb = HEAD 2003-11-25 04:21:57 UTC > gcc = 3.3.2 > binutils = 2.14 > glibc = 2.2.93-5-rh > gformat = dwarf-2 > glevel = 2 > > I have two issues. > > === Issue #1: the demangler changed its interface. > > The demangler used to return parameters all the time, but now it looks > like it returns parameters only if DMGL_PARAMS is given. > > This change did not happen with "complete rewrite". It happened > with the followup patch: > > 2003-11-22 Ian Lance Taylor > > * cp-demangle.c (d_encoding): Add top_level parameter. Change all > callers. > (print_usage): Display new -p option. > (long_options): Add --no-params. > (main): Accept and handle -p. > > So the questions are: > > (A) Does gdb want to keep getting the parameters? > (My answer: yes we do). > > (B) If we want the parameters, should we change gdb to set DMGL_PARAMS, > or should we ask the demangler to keep giving us the parameters with > our existing flags, which is usually just DMGL_ANSI? (My answer: > let Ian tell us what the interface actually is, and then we'll adapt > gdb to match). The former, since ths has been the documented interface to the demangler forever. I believe the GNU v2 demangler supported it. But I thought we did everywhere - where aren't we that this caused a problem? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer