From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21770 invoked by alias); 18 May 2003 04:35:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21755 invoked from network); 18 May 2003 04:35:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 May 2003 04:35:23 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19HFtn-0006yf-00; Sat, 17 May 2003 23:35:51 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19HFtH-0002tt-00; Sun, 18 May 2003 00:35:19 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 04:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Naming dwarves Message-ID: <20030518043519.GA11124@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200305171253.h4HCrTT0012142@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200305171253.h4HCrTT0012142@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 02:53:29PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Andrew already made a side-remark in an earlier message: how are we > going to name our files and functions related to DWARF? > > There are basically two generations of the DWARF Debugging Information > Format. The first generation is usually referred to as DWARF Version > 1. There is a 1.1.0 revision of the DWARF standard, but this revision > is supposed to be fully binary compatible with the origional DWARF > definition. The second generation is referred to as DWARF Version 2, > or simply DWARF-2. Although the basic structure of Version 2 format > is the very similar to Version 1, the encoding is different. > Therefore these two formats are not binary compatible, which is why we > have seperate DWARF and DWARF-2 symbol readers in GDB. There are also > many new features in DWARF-2. > > There is also a public draft for DWARF Version 3, which should be > largely binary compatible with Version 2. Standardization of Version > 3 seems to have stopped, but some of the proposed extensions are > already in use. I believe our DWARF-2 reader supports these. Since > the Version 3 format is largely binary compatible with Version 2, I > don't think we'll ever have a seperate DWARF-3 reader in GDB. The > number of new features in the proposed standard is rather limited. > > Currently we have the following files dealing with DWARF: > > DWARF Version 1: > dwarfread.c > > DWARF Version 2: > dwarf2read.c > dwarf2expr.c dwarf2expr.h > dwarf2loc.c dwarf2loc.h > dwarf2cfi.c dwarf2cfi.h (consider these deprecated) > dwarf-frame.c dwarf-frame.h (on the i386newframe branch) > > The dwarfread.c module exports only one function: > dwarf_build_psymtabs(). The dwarf2*.c modules export several > functions, some with the dwarf2_ prefix, some with the dwarf_ prefix, > and some with no prefix at all. I think Andrew would like to see that > we use dwarf2 in the names of files implementing DWARF-2 things, and > the dwarf2_ prefix for public function names. Is that right? If > people agree, I'll rename my DWARF CFI bits before I move things over > to mainline. I'd certainly prefer it to be a dwarf2frame or dwarf2-frame rather than dwarf. I'm thinking about running through dwarf2read.c and renaming dwarf_* there... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer