This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [patch] java run-time stack trace

Andrew Haley wrote:

> Per Bothner writes:
>  > Bryce McKinlay <> writes:
>  >
>  > > Actually, I'd like to have CNI functions mangled in C++ style. This is
>  > > how they are written in the source code (think copy/search/paste), and it
>  > > can help to make it very obvious when the stack trace goes through native
>  > > code. Also, this is consistent with GDB.
>  >
>  > What about library functions?  Having (say) ClassLoader.defineClass
>  > should up in C++ style is *not* what most users want or expect.

Why not? If ClassLoader.defineClass is showing up in a stack trace, then
presumably there is a bug somewhere. The user wants to understand what is going
on in order to fix that bug, so will go looking for the implementation.  That
implementation is written in C++ style, so surely it makes sense to demangle it
in C++ style. We don't _want_ to hide implementation details in a stack trace!

> I'm sure this is right.  What bothers me is how java demangling can
> possibly cope with things like array<int>.

Well, it should cope fine - it doesn't touch anything it isn't aware of - all it
does is emit "." instead of "::", no "*"s, the right java primitive type names,
and a special case for "JArray<>". Otherwise, the same C++ demangling code is


  [ bryce ]

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]