This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Select a particular mangling of a demangled symbol in lookup_block_symbol
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:46:41 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Select a particular mangling of a demangled symbol in lookup_block_symbol
- References: <200202160038.g1G0cbd03065@duracef.shout.net>
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 06:38:37PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> > What we really SHOULD do is set it on both constructors silently, without
> > even acknowledging that they are different functions, or else offer the user
> > the choice. My preference is actually for the former.
> There's more grossness than that. Suppose that the constructor calls
> another function foo(). Suppose the user sets a breakpoint on foo()
> and looks at the stack and sees the constructor. Suppose the user looks
> at the assembly code for the constructor. Suppose the user continues,
> and takes the breakpoint on foo() again, and disassembles the constructor
> again, and sees different assembly code for the constructor.
> Games like that impair the user's trust in gdb. They start with a lie,
> And they lead to endless scenarios where you have to fix things up in
> order to maintain the lie.
> I would prefer that the different blocks of object code with different
> mangled names have different demangled names as well, such as "Foo::Foo()"
> and "Foo::Foo$nic()". (I guess if the user actually names one of his
> member functions Foo$nic then we are screwed ... is there any possible
> name which is not legal C++ member name?)
We -could- just use the names the C++ demangler provides with
DMGL_VERBOSE for some printing. However, we want to be careful about
that. They look like:
and for max confusion:
[I should report that, I suppose...]
I would prefer to recognize this using our constructor machinery and
describe this as something like:
which is more aesthetic and lets us have a better conception of what is
going on. Bear in mind that sometimes we look up "A::A" wanting to get
that. Our overload handling needs some work, which I'm trying to
figure out right now.
Meanwhile, I'd like to put this patch in because it is a strict
improvement over what we have.
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer