From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29320 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2009 05:17:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 29307 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2009 05:17:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Cary Coutant , Dodji Seketeli , GDB/Archer list Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal for a new DWARF name index section Message-ID: <20091202051717.GA24978@caradoc.them.org> References: <4A7FE28D.4050901@redhat.com> <4A8D8868.3010302@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SW-Source: 2009-q4/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 12:13:47PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > The hash code idea seems a little weird to me, but the name > canonicalization problem seems important to solve. FWIW, I think this is a good argument for handling this as a GDB caching extension rather than a DWARF extension. I can't imagine any way to stably standardize this. GDB is designed to be, if not completely robust, at least flexible w.r.t. future changes in the demangler's canonicalized output. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery