From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22302 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2003 01:20:38 -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 22286 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 01:20:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 01:20:37 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2B1KWM16135; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:20:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb , Michael Elizabeth Chastain Subject: Re: GCC, stabs, mangled names References: <20030311005656.GA20906@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 01:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030311005656.GA20906@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:56:56 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > It's unclear what the right thing to do is. Stabs is underspecified > (and underimplemented too). Someone needs to decide what would be > useful. I compared this with 2.95.3, and it seems that GCC switched from only using mangled names to only using demangled names. If we can't have both, it seems to me that only having mangled names is more useful. Did anybody from the GDB side ask them to switch the output that they produced? If so, what was the rationale? David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu