Re: [PATCH] Naming dwarves

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> 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.

Yes, all correct, except ``DWARF 2'' (which appears in the spec once) 
rather than ``DWARF-2'' :-)

Andrew