This is the mail archive of the
elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: dwarflint versus linkage_name attributes
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 11:00:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: dwarflint versus linkage_name attributes
> There is actually a comment in the source code:
>
> /* This is a GNU Extension. We are adding a
> DW_AT_linkage_name attribute to the DIE of the
> anonymous struct TYPE. The value of that attribute
> is the name of the typedef decl naming the anonymous
> struct. This greatly eases the work of consumers of
> this debug info. */
Because the typedef name is what contributes to the mangled name of its
methods? I still don't understand why there isn't just a linkage_name on
each method (including the anonymous constructor methods).
> Although I admit to need to think a little harder to really understand
> how this is really used. And example would help.
Me too. What does a consumer want with a linkage_name for a type?
> I like to make sure that we document these extensions in dwarflint as
> clearly as possible.
Certainly.
Thanks,
Roland