This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [dictionary] commit for 2003-03-06
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:40:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: [dictionary] commit for 2003-03-06
- References: <ro1y93sf15j.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:52:56PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
> Following Andrew's lead, I'm going to try to remember to post my
> commits to carlton_dictionary-branch. They won't always be the
> prettiest commits: I usually commit once at the end of each day that
> I've done any work on the branch, assuming that I leave it in a
> working state (which I almost always do!); this means that a commit
> may contain something that I plan to continue the next day, and it
> also may contain bits of unrelated tasks that I'm working on. Also,
> the ChangeLogs aren't great: they're written in a way that is easy to
> generate, as opposed to a way that is easiest to review years in the
> future. (I'm much more careful with the ChangeLogs on the mainline,
> don't worry!)
>
> This branch has as its primarily task to improve C++ namespace
> support; it also contains cleanups related to symbol names, linespec,
> and const correctness. (All of which I intend to move to the
> mainline; I'm doing so gradually.) It's probably not as focussed a
> branch as Andrew would like; it works for me, though.
>
> Today's commits are the start of cleaning up minimal symbol names and
> accessors (which will be an ongoing task), and fixes a few (but not
> all) FAILing regexps in gdb.c++/templates.exp (also ongoing, though
> actually I think I'm more likely to try to get rid of the differences
> in behavior rather than make the regexps more generous).
>
> Question for those of you who have read this far: now that
> lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms is on its last legs (it's gone on the
> branch), do you think we could get rid of the demangled hash table for
> minsyms? I'll try to audit uses of lookup_minimal_symbol tomorrow or
> next week.
No. Every time you talk about removing something with minimal symbols,
remember that we can use them to debug a program with no symbolic debug
info.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer