Re: [RFC] Proposal for a new DWARF name index section

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:07:41AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I think it would still be ok.  We would specify the canonical form as
> part of the extension, and it would be up to compilers, and gdb, to
> correctly implement it.  AFAICT it can be specified entirely in terms of
> the source language of the CU.

Well, as long as I'm not the one who has to convert the C++ demangler
into a specification, I guess it's not totally crazy.  I still think
this makes more sense as an internal cache, though, because it's so
tied to the implementation of both the compiler and debugger.  And
the canonicalization isn't cheap, and doesn't match GCC's internal
representation of the names; this would slow down GCC to speed up
debugging.

You could even speed up full DIE reading this way, by canonicalizing
strings there also, and leaving an attribute or other marking in the
cached copy saying this string was simple.

Not to mention it's easier to prototype :-)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery