On 8 May 2012 18:20, Sterling Augustine <saugust...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Sterling Augustine >> <saugust...@google.com> wrote: >>> This is the second in the series of patches to make c decl pretty printing >>> more closely match the demangler. A full explanation is here: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00512.html >>> >>> OK for mainline? >> >> Now I realize something that is wrong with the previous patch. >> Writing 'const T*' in C++ is very much wide spread style is also the >> style used in the C++ standard, TC++PL (the de facto popular reference >> TC++PL), >> our own C++ standard library implementation, and many popular modern >> C++ textbooks. >> It is a strongly well established style. >> Changing the pretty printer to satisfy the demangler as opposed to users >> look wrong headed. > > I'm most definitely not trying to satisfy the demangler--I'm trying to > make GCC's naming consistent with the rest of the tool chain, which > will be good for users. Consider the C++ function: > > int foo(const char *bar); > > The problem is that the toolchain disagrees on the canonical > pretty-name of this function. If you use nm, objdump, or readelf, or > anything that must recover the name from the binary, you will see: > > int foo(char const*) > > The demangler follows the documented gnu_v3 demangling convention. As > far as I can tell, the C++ front end is ad-hoc. This disagreement > creates inconsistencies in the debugging information that is confusing > to users. > > Do you have a suggestion for fixing the disagreement? I would love to > add this as a parameter somewhere, but the decision is very deep in > the internals of the pretty printer.
A suggestion: Make dwarf_name call the demangler, and then a (new?) a function that converts a mangled decl to a human-readable string. In any case, the pretty-printer does a lot of stuff that is mostly useless for just printing a declaration (translation, wrapping, etc.). Bonus point if all GNU toolchain program use the same functions for demangling and undemagling (because I guess they actually don't, no?) I guess it cannot be so easy, so I apologize in advance for saying nonsense. Cheers, Manuel.
