From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22595 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2003 22:36:25 -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 22588 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2003 22:36:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2003 22:36:24 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h71Ma8iB024033 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 15:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 15:36:23 -0700 Received: from apple.com (keatge.apple.com [17.201.20.159]) by scv2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h71MaFQZ004495; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 15:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:36:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Two possible function stabs patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney From: Geoffrey Keating In-Reply-To: <3F27D397.5000104@redhat.com> Message-Id: <92FC36EA-C470-11D7-A68E-0030657EA24A@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 07:17 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote: >> Oops! Forgot to attach the actual patches. Fixed below. >> OK, so I have not one, but two patches! > > Um, these appear to come with a little history (Solaris perhaphs?). > Can you provide a bit of a background? You'll likely also want to add > something to the GNU stabs document found in the GDB distro. So far as I know, this is a bug that has been in GCC since 1992, and before that I don't know what the history is. I looked at the stabs document in GDB; this patch makes GCC more compliant with it. >> 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 >> 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. >> 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. > > I'd strongly encourage you to install GNU/Linux and *BSD on a couple > local old/slow Mac boxes. It will make testing a lot easier. All my old/slow boxen get used for GCC regression testing... -- Geoff Keating