Re: [PATCH] Fix gdb.cp/no-dmgl-verbose.exp test

[Lancelot SIX <lsix@lancelotsix.com>]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:09:49AM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote:
> On 4/29/22 09:57, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > On 2022-04-29 16:48, Carl Love via Gdb-patches wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 09:14 +0000, Lancelot SIX wrote:
> > 
> > So the file is called gdb.cp/no-dmgl-verbose.exp.  "no-dmgl" most certainly means "no demangle".
> > 
> > How is that related to "no demangle verbose" ?  A mystery.
> 
> I believe I remember some history of this...
> 
> When I did the physname work years ago, a maintainer objected that the
> recorded physname for a function which takes a std::string was
> "reduced" to "std::string<blah blah blah>" instead of recording (and
> thus subsequently printing) "std::string" like other tools do. [He
> speciifcally mentioned "nm".]
> 
> The "no-dmgl-verbose" refers to the demangler option, DMGL_VERBOSE,
> which I originally used when computing physnames. I believe this test's
> intention was to make sure that DMGL_VERBOSE didn't creep back into the
> code.
> 
> [Background: At the time, the compiler did not output sufficient debuginfo
> for a bunch of symbols, such as ctors. Thus the physname computation
> was a way to "fill-in" this missing/necessary information.]
> 
> There's a number of other workarounds for this "std::string"
> vs "std::string<blah blah blah>" (and others) in cp-support.c.
> See "ignore_typedefs". [Pardon if my explanation is imprecise.
> This was a looong time ago.]
> 
> Keith
> 

Hi,

Thanks for the history perspective.

I was digging in the commits logs, and this commit was introduced by
3f542ed1a314b4831f71ade5006d1926d58f8303.  This test removed the
DMGL_VERBOSE option.

I mainly did that because I was wondering if the test name was still
appropriate (I kind of think it is not), but I do not have a "good" name
to propose just yet.

Best,
Lancelot.