This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: FYI: fix PR 9708
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 02:00:11PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Yes, I think we should also omit DW_TAG_subprogram here. I just didn't
> think of it. I can either just check it in, or if you have an easy way
> to test it, let me know. I've appended the patch.
The patch looks good to me; would you mind committing it?
I'm flushing out a bunch of fixed for the C parts of the GDB testsuite
with RealView; in a week or so, I think I'll be ready to start
seriously working on the C++ parts. At that point I can be less
hypothetical.
> Calling them f()::x might be interesting, but there are some caveats.
The only reason I thought of this was:
drow@caradoc:~% cat a.c
int f()
{
static int x;
return x;
}
drow@caradoc:~% nm a.o | c++filt
0000000000000000 T f()
0000000000000000 b f()::x
U __gxx_personality_v0
i.e. that's what the physname would be if we demangled the linkage
name.
Other than that, I'm not attached to it.
> opsy. nm pr | grep themagicstatic
> 080497de V _ZZN1K1mEvE14themagicstatic
> 080497dd V _ZZN1K1mEvE14themagicstatic_0
For added amusement pipe that to c++filt. They demangle the same.
Doesn't that seem like a bug?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery