bfd_find_nearest_line function name return isn't mangled ?

[John Levon]

On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 09:10:08AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> You should not depend on it.

We're merely depending on libbfd returning a sensible string.

> It's not actually standard DWARF2 or DWARF3, and it's going away anyway.
> The proper way to construct, from DWARF2 info, the scoped method name, 
> arguments, and return value is to walk the DIE tree, and paste the 
> parts together, not to depend on DW_AT_mips_linkage_name.

Is there any hope of libbfd doing this then ? The current return value
from bfd_find_nearest_line() is particularly misleading. I think it's
reasonable to call it a bug, even if it lies in binutils and not gdb.

thanks,
john

-- 
Khendon's Law:
If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread is over.