On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:09 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > No. No. Just NO. (A) that's overly complex for developers to use, > and (B) you have far too much faith in the debugger producing something > useful. (My experience is that it'll fail to render function pointers > legibly on an awful lot of platforms.) Plus, you won't actually save > any space by removing both of those fields.
FWIW, I noticed that GDB becomes much better at this when you add "set print symbol on" to your .gdbinit dot file about a year ago. In theory you shouldn't need to do that to print the symbol that a function pointer points to, I think. At least that's what the documentation says. But in practice this seems to help a lot. I don't recall figuring out a reason for this. Could have been due to GDB being fussier about the declared type of a pointer than it needs to be, or something along those lines. -- Peter Geoghegan
