From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3344 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2003 15:33:43 -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 3337 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2003 15:33:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mclean.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.57) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Nov 2003 15:33:41 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AOfBd-0002Kk-00; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:33:10 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 788C04B409; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:33:05 -0500 (EST) To: drow@mvista.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: C++/Java regressions Cc: carlton@kealia.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, ian@wasabisystems.com Message-Id: <20031125153305.788C04B409@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:33:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00239.txt.bz2 drow> The former, since ths has been the documented interface to the drow> demangler forever. Sounds good to me. drow> I believe the GNU v2 demangler supported it. Yes it does. drow> But I thought we did everywhere - where aren't we that this caused drow> a problem? I don't know what's causing the problem with the java tests. print_frame in stack.c is part of the problem with gdb.cp/method.exp. It's intentionally omitting DMGL_PARAMS. But actually it's just a precursor for some other code that I haven't find yet. With v2, when DMGL_PARAMS is not set, the arguments don't get printed, and the "const" modifier doesn't get printed either. Breakpoint 3, A::bar (this=0xbffff770, arg=15) at ... With the old v3 demangler, the args get printed even though we didn't ask for them: Breakpoint 3, A::bar(int) const (this=...) With the new v3 demangler, the args do not get printed, but the "const" attribute is printed: Breakpoint 3, A::bar const (this=...) So actually the old demangler was broken, and the new demangler is doing what we ask it to do. Now we have to think about what we really want to see. What is the correct output when a breakpoint is taken on "A::bar(int) const" ? (This particular test accepts either "A::bar" or "A::bar(int) const", but not "A::bar const". That's why the FAIL popped up. Just another bit of ad-hoc matching. After we decide what should be printed, I can change the test). Michael C