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

[Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com>]

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.

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