This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] While processing a struct die, store the method's address in its fn_field
- From: Siva Chandra <sivachandra at google dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 23:31:47 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC] While processing a struct die, store the method's address in its fn_field
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGyQ6gxO+u9hc_6Qo8Z=-MsNgrBPruDSULYOQY-iQ+xv9d0xfw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CADPb22T800NSiXg4XjOwTgwQSZfs-uSBoSku0b7tkF=CAGkzwQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGyQ6gwZhLkVwcay=r=n-V7W+eVn7iWrn_MRzksPegSym7A40g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CADPb22QmGovY394MbkwqZ34SVGEHkk7Z+6V5OqOGvbsxv_WgVg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGyQ6gzOr86ORPhUjvBZ1YpQdsFDnUqz8gSJsy399+OKVufqzA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CADPb22Sb3r5RdXc_879iVF8uqMmjhoo9uAiyfOeKKTep6OL0Xw at mail dot gmail dot com>
Phew...
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> fwiw, GDB is bad enough that I often can't trust just reading the code.
> I often punt on that and actually single step through
> the relevant code to REALLY see what is happening.
I single stepped through the code and now see everything that you said here!
I believed this in gdbtypes.h:
889 /* * If is_stub is clear, this is the mangled name which
890 we can look up to find the address of the method
891 (FIXME: it would be cleaner to have a pointer to the
892 struct symbol here instead).
893
894 If is_stub is set, this is the portion of the mangled
895 name which specifies the arguments. For example, "ii",
896 if there are two int arguments, or "" if there are no
897 arguments. See gdb_mangle_name for the conversion from
898 this format to the one used if is_stub is clear. */
899
900 const char *physname;
Rest of what I thought I understood fell out from this belief! And the
names look so enticing.
Resetting my mind ...