This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: Search for symbol names the same way they're hashed.
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Jim Ingham <jingham at apple dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:16:45 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFA: Search for symbol names the same way they're hashed.
- References: <1033595444.9324.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> <C4BE3A60-D669-11D6-BB61-00039379E320@apple.com>
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 05:48:01PM -0700, Jim Ingham wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 02:50 PM,
> gdb-patches-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
>
> >>We need to make demangling-style only affect *printout* and *user
> >>entered strings*, and during symbol reading, force it to auto, so it
> >>always gets the right names in the symbol table in the first place.
> >
> >Doesn't that sort of defeat the point of letting the user set
> >demangling style? It's in case something goes wrong with
> >autodetection....
> >
> >>>The source code name of a symbol does not depend depend on the
> >>>current
> >>>demangling setting;
> >>
> >>And to enforce this, you have to make the readers *not* honor the
> >>demangling style. If you just fix SYMBOL_SOURCE_NAME,
> >>SYMBOL_INIT_DEMANGLED_NAME will still be only called once, and it'll
> >>have the wrong demangling style when it calls cplus_demangle,
> >>resulting
> >>in the symbol having the wrong demangled name forevermore.
> >
> >Perhaps we need to decide what the point of letting users force the
> >demangle style is, first.
>
> The case where we have had to use this was because we had private C++
> API's in some of the Mac OS X frameworks for 10.2 (which was compiled
> with gcc 3.1) but users who didn't want to move their C++ code to 3.1
> yet. When you hit the frameworks, gdb would see _Z, and assume the
> mangling style was the 3.1 style. Of course, all their code was 2.95,
> and they didn't in general care about the C++ stuff in frameworks
> (Apple tries not to export C++ API's if it can help it). So forcing
> demangling to 2.95 was useful in this case.
>
> This should, hopefully, be just a short term problem. Very few of our
> customers are still using 2.95 that we know about. But it is still
> worth keeping in mind for the next year or so...
Time to unconfuse one issue:
Jim, are you sure that you are talking about _demangling_ style? It is
orthogonal to 'set cp-abi'. I'm talking about 'set demangle-style'
here. I assume in a mixed v2/v3 environment you'd want 'auto' anyway.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer