Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix .gdb_index with Ada

[Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>]

On 10/13/22 22:40, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Tom> [ ... patch ... ]
> Tom> fixes the FAIL, so is this one of the "rare and not worth supporting"
> Tom> cases you're referring to?
> 
>> I thought that was necessary to avoid redundancy in the index, but I see
>> now it isn't, or at least not in that way.  I'm looking again at why the
>> new indices are larger in general.
> 
> I looked into this more.
> 
> Older versions of gdb don't add C++ symbols to the index, so when I
> diff'd the indexes I saw a lot of "_Z" additions.  Locally I've changed
> this code to skip linkage names for C++ only.
> 

Ah, does that then fix the c-linkage-name.exp regression?

Thanks,
- Tom


> I compared the symbols from old and new indexes.  In every case (except
> the one below) I checked, the new gdb seemed more correct.  In
> particular it added inlined functions to the index, and it used the
> correct name for "enum class" enumerator constants.
> 
> I did find out that the new index included entries for the linkage names
> of classes.  This isn't generally useful, and they have weird names like
> "6mumble", so I also have a patch to drop these entries from the cooked
> index entirely.
> 
> Tom