[Bug symtab/24820] .debug_names has incorrect contents

["cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24820

--- Comment #14 from Sourceware Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom Tromey <tromey@sourceware.org>:

https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=91a42a618085f236c5f6527322f88044e7550a63

commit 91a42a618085f236c5f6527322f88044e7550a63
Author: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
Date:   Sun Dec 3 18:20:37 2023 -0700

    Rewrite .debug_names writer

    This rewrites GDB's .debug_names writer.  It is now closer to the form
    imagined in the DWARF spec.  In particular, names are emitted exactly
    as they appear in the original DWARF.

    In order to make the reader work nicely, some extensions were needed.
    These were all documented in an earlier patch.  Note that in
    particular this writer solves the "main name" problem by putting a
    flag into the table.

    GDB does not use the .debug_names hash table, so it also does not
    write one.  I consider this hash table to be essentially useless in
    general, due to the name canonicalization problem -- while DWARF says
    that writers should use the system demangling style, (1) this style
    varies across systems, so it can't truly be relied on; and (2) at
    least GCC and one other compiler don't actually follow this part of
    the spec anyway.

    It's important to note, though, that even if the hash was somehow
    useful, GDB probably still would not use it -- a sorted list of names
    is needed for completion and performs reasonably well for other
    lookups, so a hash table is just overhead, IMO.

    String emission is also simplified.  There's no need in this writer to
    ingest the contents of .debug_str.

    A couple of tests are updated to reflect the fact that they now "fail"
    because the tests don't include .debug_aranges in the .S file.
    Arguably the .debug_names writer should also create this section; but
    I did not implement that in this series, and there is a separate bug
    about it.

    Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24820
    Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24549

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.