From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-16434-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 5610 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2003 16:48:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 5441 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2003 16:48:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO blount.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.226)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2003 16:48:01 -0000
Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com)
	by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 1ARa9z-0006Ee-00; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:47:31 -0500
Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id 201124B35B; Wed,  3 Dec 2003 11:47:34 -0500 (EST)
To: ian@wasabisystems.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Slow handling of C++ symbol names
Cc: ac131313@redhat.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com,
	wcohen@redhat.com
Message-Id: <20031203164734.201124B35B@berman.michael-chastain.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:48:00 -0000
From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2

Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Could you extract a few of the larger demangled names from each version,
> and post them?  It might be a good double-check that something isn't
> weirdly broken.

I'm working on it.

I'm writing a Perl script to pass each name through both demanglers,
strip the differences, and compare the results.  There are a lot of
picky differences to account for.

So far I've found one type of difference that looks like a bug in the
new demangler.

  _ZStltI9file_pathSsEbRKSt4pairIT_T0_ES6_
  OLD: bool std::operator< <file_path, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >(std::pair<file_path, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > const&, std::pair<file_path, std::basic_string<char, > std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > const&)
  NEW: bool std::operator<<file_path, std::string>(std::pair<file_path, std::string> const&, std::pair<file_path, std::string> const&)

The old demangler produces "operator< <", and the new demangler produces
"operator <<".  I'm not a name mangling expert but I think that
"operator <" is correct here and the new demangler suffers from
shift-operator-versus-template-syntax gotcha.

Also, why do you want the demangled names?  I would think you would
have the same old+new demanglers that I do, so that the mangled names
would suffice.  My reason is that the mangled names which are different
amount to 3 megabytes or so, but the demangled names which are different
amount to 300 megabytes or so.

Michael C