This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] dwarf2_physname
On 08/31/2009 03:55 PM, Michael Eager wrote:
Does this mean that (eventually) the DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name attribute
will not be needed by GDB?
That is exactly what it is intended to do. MIPS_linkage_name is not
needed in any case I've been able to invent on my
archer-keiths-expr-cumulative branch, and that branch has MUCH tougher
C++ tests than FSF gdb does.
There was a significant amount of discussion about whether this was
really needed. There were a couple examples where it might provide
information which was not otherwise available or where it compensated
for linkers which didn't support weak externs.
This is the first I've heard of this -- thank you for pointing it out.
My cursory reading of the proposal leaves me torn about whether this
really changes anything. I've clearly had better results WITHOUT
DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name than with it, but I can imagine how having
DW_AT_linkage_name for certain special situations might be useful.
Perhaps this might just be the beginning of using DW_AT_linkage_name for
these "special" situations, as opposed to assuming that every object has
a DW_AT_linkage_name. I don't know. I guess time will tell.