Re: [RFA] Introduce notion of "search name"

[Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr at gnat dot com>]

> Unfortunately, discussion of that took over the thread, and you never
> answered my last question about this patch:
> 
>  On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:29:55AM -0500, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
>  > > What you did not explain is how [SYMBOL_DEMANGLED_SEARCH_NAME]                                      
>  > > is supposed to be different from SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME.                                                
>  >                                                                                                       
>  > Well, the direct answer is that for Ada,                                                              
>  >       SYMBOL_DEMANGLED_SEARCH_NAME (sym) == NULL                                                      
>  > whereas                                                                                               
>  >       SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME (sym) == the "linkage name" of the symbol                                    
>  > Perhaps, now that you bring it up, it might be clearer simply to make                                 
>  > this a predicate:                                                                                     
>  >       SYMBOL_SEARCHED_BY_DEMANGLED_NAME (sym)                                                         
>  > or something like that?                                                                               
> 
>  I don't think that either of those divisions is general enough to be
>  useful.  Why should the search name have to be the linkage name or the
>  demangled name?  For C++ there are two potential 'search names' - the
>  name without DMGL_PARAMS, or just the basename.  Neither of these is
>  the linkage or natural name.
> 
> I don't want us to proliferate name-related macros without a very clear
> understanding of when each one is appropriate.

Daniel,

OK.  The only use for SYMBOL_SEARCHED_BY_DEMANGLED_NAME is to answer
the question, "Do we need to index this minimal symbol under its
demangled name?"  It would work to re-write the test in
build_minimal_symbol_hash_tables as

      if (SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME (msym) != SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (msym))
	add_minsym_to_demangled_hash_table (msym,
                                            objfile->msymbol_demangled_hash);

from the current

     if (SYMBOL_DEMANGLED_NAME (msym) != NULL)
	...

(although to use !=, you'd also want to document the fact that when
SYMBOL_SEARCH_NAME is strcmp-equal to SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME, it is also
pointer equal).  This re-write avoids introducing a new name, answering 
one of your objections.  Furthermore, minimal symbols are searched for only
by the linkage name or the search name (by definition), so it seems that the
proposed test is correct.  

What do you think?

Paul