This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: C++/Java regressions


On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 05:21:43PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) writes:
> 
> > ian> Yes, I think it should print A::bar without the const.  I have the
> > ian> patch in my sources, but I haven't checked it in yet.
> > 
> > But what about:
> > 
> >   class Foo
> >   {
> >     public:
> >       int method ();
> >       int method () const;
> >   };
> > 
> > If the name comes back as "Foo::method" then we have ambiguity
> > in gdb's output.
> > 
> > I think the const looks ugly and the code that prints the function
> > name is also ugly.  But I don't wanna print the same name for two
> > different methods.
> 
> I have probably lost the context of the question.  I am only talking
> about the case where DMGL_PARAMS is not passed.  In that case, the
> demangler will indeed print `Foo::method' for both of your examples.
> For that matter, it will also print `Foo::method' for `int method
> (int);'.
> 
> If DMGL_PARAMS is passed, then the demangler will print
> `Foo::method()' and `Foo::method() const' as usual.
> 
> I think that is appropriate.  Without DMGL_PARAMS, you can't
> distinguish any Foo::method overloaded based on parameter types.  So
> it seems logical to me that you also shouldn't be able to distinguish
> overloading based on the method qualifier.  And that is how the V2
> demangler behaved when DMGL_PARAMS was not passed.
> 
> Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but I see Michael's concern.  If you look at the
complete GDB output in this case, you get roughly:
Stopped at breakpoint 1, A::bar ()		for A::bar()
Stopped at breakpoint 1, A::bar ()		for A::bar() const
Stopped at breakpoint 1, A::bar (a = 1)		for A::bar(int)

I still think the demangler should return A::bar.  If we want GDB's
output to be unambiguous then GDB is the right place to print the
const.  Without debug info we may not have it... but who really cares?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


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