On 7 February 2018 at 16:36, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-02-07 11:26, Michael Matz wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Simon Marchi wrote: >> >>> This addresses the issue of how to do good software design in GDB to >>> support different producers cleanly, but I think we have some issues >>> even before that, like how to support g++ 7.3 and up. I'll try to >>> summarize the issue quickly. It's now possible to end up with two >>> templated classes with the same name that differ only by the signedness >>> of their non-type template parameter. One is Foo<int N> and the other >>> is Foo<unsigned int N> (the 10 is unsigned). Until 7.3, g++ would >>> generate names like Foo<10> for the former and names like Foo<10u> for >>> the later (in the DW_AT_name attribute of the classes' DIEs). Since 7.3, >>> it produces Foo<10> for both. >> >> >> Yeah, gdb needs a way to lookup types by name, and since the change >> DW_AT_name can't be used for this anymore. Either that needs to be >> fixed/reverted, or we do the more obvious thing: since types in C++ have >> linkage it makes sense to add the linkage (i.e. mangled) name to the types >> DIE using the traditional DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name. >> >> That latter solution would have the advantage that you don't need to >> demangle anything anymore. From vtable you get to typeinfo, from there >> for typeinfo name, and that contains the mangled type name (without _Z >> prefix). > > > But do struct/classes have mangled names?
Yes.
