This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fwd: Two possible function stabs patches
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>
- Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:14:39 -0400
- Subject: Re: Fwd: Two possible function stabs patches
- References: <288F3C82-C22A-11D7-B17B-0030657EA24A@apple.com>
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:07:15PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> Oops! Forgot to attach the actual patches. Fixed below.
>
>
> OK, so I have not one, but two patches!
>
> The first one is less interesting. It uses the language's name for the
> function, unless it's a C++ function, in which case it uses the
> (mangled) assembler name. It'll give a stab like
>
> .stabs "__ZN3bar3fooEv:F(0,1)",36,0,2,__ZN3bar3fooEv
> or
> .stabs "foo:F(0,1)",36,0,2,foo.11
This would probably work, but I think it's less useful.
> The second one uses the 'printable name' for the function. That is,
> for C it's just the name, and for C++ it's the demangled version of its
> name. I am not at all sure it'll work, because it gives stabs like:
>
> .stabs "int bar::foo():F(0,1)",36,0,2,__ZN3bar3fooEv
>
> which I suspect can't be parsed.
This won't work. You're right; it's unparseable. Could you manage to
generate "bar::foo:F(0,1)" instead? GDB should handle that correctly
as-is.
> Could someone help me test these? It needs a machine that can use
> stabs and on which the GDB testsuite doesn't give too many false
> positives.
i386-linux can do this. I'd offer to do it, but only if Michael's too
busy - his test setup is vastly more thorough than I could manage.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer