This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[Bug c++/16843] GDB relies on the mangled name of a subprogram to be a prefix of the enclosing class name
- From: "tromey at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: gdb-prs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:00:26 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/16843] GDB relies on the mangled name of a subprogram to be a prefix of the enclosing class name
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-16843-4717 at http dot sourceware dot org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16843
Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tromey at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to David Blaikie from comment #0)
> If GDB doesn't rely on this assumption and can handle some differences
> between naming (for example GCC always uses "long int" even though c++filt
> demangles this as "long", 'x' versus (char)120, etc, etc... ) then it's just
> missing a case to handle the bug reported against GCC.
gdb doesn't rely on this.
Instead it does name canonicalization.
> In this case, "ptype f" will give a declaration of foo<1> because the
> difference in mangled names (foo<'\001'> versus foo<'\x01'>) but other
> examples ('long int' versus 'long') don't exhibit this problem.
This is a bit curious since I was under the impression that gdb
demangled the linkage name, canonicalized it, and then used that name.
So, barring cases where "physname" must be computed, I thought gdb
wouldn't be using the name in the debuginfo.
But, no big deal, some part of my understanding must be wrong.
Probably a bug in the canonicalization code.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.