http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49130
--- Comment #10 from Dodji Seketeli <dodji at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-06-07 22:26:23 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I think it would be nicer if there were a DW_AT_mangled_name we could use > instead because it's shorter. This also would avoid inconsistencies. Sorry, I don't understand this. What would DW_AT_mangled_name contain that the DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name doesn't already contain? How would the content of that new attribute be shorter than DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name, and how why would it make us avoid inconsistencies?