Re: re: .debug_pubtypes

[brender at gemevn dot zko dot dec dot com (Ron 603-884-2088)]

Dave,

>|It is the application of the same naming rule to *member functions* that
>|I was asking about. I can't think of any sense in which these are objects
>|of any kind (global or otherwise), or why one might want them (but not
>|other functions) included in the pubnames section (along with "real" objects).
>
>Ah. Now I understand.  
>
>It is a bug in the document. IMO.
>One I do not recall ever noticing.

That explanation seems plausible.

Perhaps you would be willing to prepare/submit a short proposal to fix it?


>IMO, pubnames was always intended to record all global function
>definitions.  Member functions being just one example.
>Not just C/C++ 'object' definitions.
>
>Objects is not being used, here , in the precise
>way it is used in C or C++, but in a more general way.   IMO. 

Well, I think the Dwarf document itself consistently uses the word 'object'
in a way that means data thingies and not code thingies. In a quick scan
of the document, I found many cases were 'data object' is used, a similar
number where 'object' is used alone but where 'data object' would be
equivalent, some cases where 'object files' are being discussed (which is
irrelevant to this discussion'), but no cases that caught my eye where it
seems like object is intended to be construed so broadly as to include
functions. So even interpreting 'object' more generally that C/C++, the
Dwarf document doesn't seem to include functions in that notion. Indeed,
the major entity classification in DWARF seems to be objects,
subprograms/functions, and types (with a smattering of others, of course).

Ron