This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] more lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms futzing
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:16:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfa] more lookup_symbol_aux_minsyms futzing
- References: <ro1wum0fvfr.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> <15957.13747.748204.408563@localhost.redhat.com> <ro11y22656m.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 12:57:37PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:08:19 -0500, Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com> said:
>
> > A few comments
>
> Ack! I was considering this patch to be withdrawn, and I hadn't
> noticed that it got added to GNATS. Right now, all I'm proposing is
> the search_symbols part of this patch (with a comment added), as in PR
> symtab/1049. (Incidentally, I'm curious if Daniel considers the patch
> in symtab/1070 to still be active: if so, please review the e-mail
> discussion that Daniel and I had about this. I actually have more to
> say about that if you're considering approving that patch.)
Yes, I never withdrew it; that's why I forwarded it to GNATS.
> 1) A patch to correct a slight bug that remains in
> lookup_partial_symbol. Basically, partial symbols are sorted via
> strcmp but we want to use strcmp_iw as our matching criterion;
> strcmp and strcmp_iw aren't _quite_ suitable to be used together in
> this way.
Should they be sorted via strcmp_iw instead?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer