Re: [RFA]: Fix partial symbol lookups

["Peter.Schauer" <Peter dot Schauer at regent dot e-technik dot tu-muenchen dot de>]

> > The previous version of lookup_partial_symbol (before your changes) would
> > have found both mangled and demangled names.
> 
> Now this I take issue with.
> How could it possibly find demangled names, if it doesn't have access
> to them?
> lookup_partial_symbol didn't find demangled names before my patch on
> 10-12. It doesn't have the code to do so, as you pointed out yourself
> (because the SYMBOL_MATCHES_NAME is no better than the strcmp, since
> we have no access to demangled names), unless the symbol name was the
> demangled name, rather than the mangled name, which doesn't occur.

Not true.
There were no demangled names in partial symbols from most symbol readers,
_except_ for the HP reader, which we are currently discussing, and which
I discovered rather late in the day as well.
Before your change, lookup_partial_symbol fell back to a linear search
if it didn't find the symbol and had the chance to find the demangled symbol
via SYMBOL_MATCHES_NAME during the linear search.

> > As a starter, the problems mentioned in
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00230.html
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00247.html
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00248.html
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00220.html
> > are still not addressed. 
> 
> The first one includes a patch, as soon as it's approved, it'll be
> applied.

And which will have to be adapted to your patches. Which will mean more
work for me, now that I am responsible for fixing _your_ bug because _I_
submitted the RFA, right ?

> The second one points out things this patch fixes.

No, it contains an example which is not fixed after the infinite regression
gets fixed. Please read the message again and then try the example with
any combination of suggested fixes you like. It will not work.

> The third one is the same.

No, it points out another problem with `maint check'. Have you ever tried it
with your patches ?

> The fourth one has to do with makefile tweaking, so i have no clue
> what that has to do with anything.

Sorry, typo, I meant
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-10/msg00250.html
I've also submitted a patch for that one though. It is the easiest to fix,
and it seems that I will have to take care of that one as well ?

-- 
Peter Schauer			pes@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de