From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id AADDB38948C1; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:24:39 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AADDB38948C1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1666383879; bh=mokHy/Iw0Fg0m6IfyUZVkOEoKCtjVw6NUFITO4ta/io=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rkfq4Fxvn1kX6J6/KbpBF1Nm4fkOkH1DxRaOT4a54CxToOcjErD1APAZDiOxV7VEa 1jtvTb5/Rdl2o6GUVtWv6fwioS1xR14c3dlhaxTkBXnMxPFjwzG0EN2JxtbCIgl71k zPRWkZ4wkuR36+YGgy9O+IXA/72iB9Dc2RKYkSg8= From: "dblaikie at gmail dot com" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug c++/16843] GDB relies on the mangled name of a subprogram to be a prefix of the enclosing class name Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:24:38 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dblaikie at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D16843 --- Comment #6 from David Blaikie --- (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #5) > There are some differences between the canonicalizer > and the demangler, see bug #17762. Is that what is=20 > meant here? Yeah, they're certainly similar bugs - I don't know enough about the GDB implementation details to know if they're totally duplicate/identical root cause. One difference (that may be superficial) is that this bug is about type nam= es, that bug is about function names, at least partially. But, yeah, that char literals aren't canonicalized where other types like `= long int`/`long` is the/a bug somewhere. There's probably other canonicalization issues for interesting literals - I think I came across a few in Clang. (lambdas are the worst - I've tried to have some discussion with the DWARF Committee about how we should render templates instantiated with lambdas in such a way that they can be canonicalized between compilations and between compilers... ) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=