So what is wrong with v3 C++

Daniel Berlin dan@cgsoftware.com
Fri Jun 29 11:40:00 GMT 2001


Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com> writes:

> Daniel Berlin writes:
> 
>> The thing is, it shouldn't match against demangled forms, it should
>> match against *fully qualified* forms.
> 
> Ah, I feel some illumination coming on.
> 
>> Aclass a;
>> int c;
>> c = int a::george(int, int)(5, 6);
>> 
>> That's what we've got now.
> 
> gdb's goal is to have an expression evaluator that is some reasonable
> subset of the language under test.
> 
> In K & R C, the translation from "demangled" -> "fully qualified" is trivial.
> In ANSI C, the translation from "demangled" -> "fully qualified" takes work.
>   You have to convert "foo(int, int)" -> "foo".
>   This conversion is actually built into a string matcher!
> In C++, the translation from "demangled" -> "fully qualified" is hairy.
>   There are a lot of cases and changing the string matchers is hopeless.
> 
> It sounds like we need a much more detailed demangler interface, where
> the demangler gives us the demangled name, the fully qualified name,
> plus any other forms of the name we care about.

Yup, this is what would be necessary to
1. Make the STABS reader be able to give qualified names, except in
   the case of namespaces (which it still wouldn't be able to do,
   without more hacks from gcc)
2. Make the new dwarf2 reader backwards compatible without having to
   use linkage names at anything more than symbol reading time (we can
   currently be backwards compatible by falling back on the linkage
   name, and doing what we used to, which is, use it).


> 
> Michael

-- 
"Last time I went to the movies I was thrown out for bringing my
own food.  My argument was that the concession stand prices are
outrageous.  Besides, I haven't had a Bar-B-Que in a long time.
"-Steven Wright



More information about the Gdb mailing list