From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32532 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2007 01:04:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 32524 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Apr 2007 01:04:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Apr 2007 02:04:33 +0100 Received: from zps35.corp.google.com (zps35.corp.google.com [172.25.146.35]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id l3514S1o021569; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:04:28 -0700 Received: from localhost.localdomain.google.com (dhcp-172-18-116-229.corp.google.com [172.18.116.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by zps35.corp.google.com with ESMTP id l3514OGu002592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:04:24 -0700 To: maynardj@us.ibm.com Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: C++ demangling of 64-bit symbols on ppc64 References: <4612D2FA.4050407@us.ibm.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4612D2FA.4050407@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 Maynard Johnson writes: > As the de facto maintainer of the ppc64 bits of oprofile, I was > recently asked to look into an oprofile bug where it was incorrectly > demangling 64-bit symbols. The oprofile code uses the libiberty > function, cplus_demangle(), but is not getting back the right answer > for ppc64 64-bit symbols. This appears to be more fallout from the > change (made a couple years ago or so) to the opd for ppc64, where the > leading "." was removed from 64-bit symbols. > > I hacked around the problem in my private oprofile src tree, but I'm > thinking this issue should be solved at its source. I'm seeing this > problem on a SLES 10 system with binutils version 2.16.91. Has this > possibly been resolved in a more recent binutils version or in CVS? Can you give an example of a symbol which the demangler is not handling correctly? Ian