This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Is physname mangled or not? (PR c++/8216)
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 07:32:43PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> It seems that by now we have agreement that GCC is correct here. So I guess
> I see two options remaining:
>
> - Code a test that compares class name and (demangled) function name, but
> explicitly removes template instance parameters first
>
> or
>
> - Have the symbol reader call is_constructor_name on the mangled name while
> it is still available, and store that information somewhere in the type
> information
>
> Thoughts?
I'd suggest the former. Anything you do with mangled names will be
unexpectedly complex; sometimes you just can't count on having them.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
Mentor Graphics