This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Proposed changes in symbol-handling for Ada

> Rather than demangling at startup, we ask each mangled name for a base
> identifier.  This can be done reasonably efficiently - I hope - I
> haven't performed measurements yet.  Then, when we search for a symbol,
> we wildcard for the basename.  We demangle everything with that
> basename.  If you do a search that doesn't know the basename you
> have to un-lazy all symbols, of course, but I don't think that's much
> of a change.


At first blush, this sounds like a great idea (at least until someone
introduces a mangling scheme in which the basename is not a
substring).  The basename situation for Ada is essentially the same as you
describe for C++.

As you may know, the current Ada lookup machinery is separate from (and 
partially duplicative of) the usual lookup machinery.  There are two
reasons for this:

1. We actually WANT to be able to match on base name alone if the user
   supplies just a base name.

2. We don't include parameter types in mangled names: instead, our
   basic lookup routine returns a list of all matches, from which we select
   by parameter type or, if that doesn't work, by giving the user a choice.

3. Three; there are three reasons:  we don't store demangled names.

So, your proposal takes care of 3.  If we could persuade you to

A. Provide a mode in which you search for the base name (i.e, return 
   the results of your preliminary sift for base names, skipping the
   comparison against full demangled name), and

B. Provide a mode in which you return ALL matches for a name.

... why we could clean up all that nasty duplication in the ada-* files and
join the civilized world.  

>  - Reasonably unique (i.e. user-choosable) basenames.  If every package
>    (or whatever they are in ada) has a method with the same basename,
>    then this scheme obviously won't work.

"Package" is right.  No, this should not be a particular problem.  


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]