From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31850 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2006 17:45:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 31839 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2006 17:45:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:45:37 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GIqbc-0002A4-Oj; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:45:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Riss Cc: Frederic RISS , Michael Veksler , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Get versioned minsyms from dynamic symtab (Was: Re: How to call operator<< functions?) Message-ID: <20060831174532.GA8294@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Riss , Frederic RISS , Michael Veksler , gdb@sourceware.org References: <1156936373.3429.250.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <1156944608.3429.275.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <1157024034.3429.303.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <44F6D16B.7090001@tx.technion.ac.il> <1157027172.3429.309.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <44F6DDF8.9000703@tx.technion.ac.il> <1157030582.3429.316.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <1157042884.3429.344.camel@crx549.cro.st.com> <20060831165738.GA6529@nevyn.them.org> <1157046081.25005.18.camel@funkylaptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1157046081.25005.18.camel@funkylaptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 07:41:20PM +0200, Frédéric Riss wrote: > In the case of C++ classes (not POD objects, but classes with methods), > the One Definition Rule gives us a way to identify those, doesn't it? I > mean both classes are named basic_ostream > > and live in the std namespace. All this is clearly described by the > Dwarf tree structure. > Of course in this case, we're speaking about incomplete types here, and > we don't know they're really not simple structures. Thus applying this > unification logic would is a bit dangerous. Exactly. It is impossible to get this reliably right for incomplete types. However, I think we should do the best we can. I haven't thought much about the implementation details yet though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery