[Bug java/29044] Libiberty demangler can not handle new Java mangling.
--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 21:43 --- Unless this turns out to be a mangling problem, I assume it's a libiberty/demangler problem. -- drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ian at airs dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29044
[Bug java/29044] Libiberty demangler can not handle new Java mangling.
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 04:03 --- (In reply to comment #0) > I am assuming the mangling change was deliberate. If so, the demangler should > be updated. The mangling change was to fix PR 9861. Maybe there is note linked from there about how this should be demangled. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29044
[Bug java/29044] Libiberty demangler can not handle new Java mangling.
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2006-09-13 06:36 --- When I run the demangler on _ZN5jmain4mainEJvP6JArrayIPN4java4lang6StringEE I get void jmain::main(JArray*) The relevant patch went in on 2005-12-10 to libiberty/cp-demangle.c. Can you confirm that you have that patch? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29044
[Bug java/29044] Libiberty demangler can not handle new Java mangling.
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 06:39 --- (In reply to comment #3) > When I run the demangler on > _ZN5jmain4mainEJvP6JArrayIPN4java4lang6StringEE > I get > void jmain::main(JArray*) What happens when running it in "Java" mode (note the -s java)? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29044
[Bug java/29044] Libiberty demangler can not handle new Java mangling.
--- Comment #5 from ian at airs dot com 2006-09-13 07:23 --- OK, with -s java I get jmain.main(java.lang.String[])void I misunderstood Daniel's report. Sorry about that. The fact that the function's return type is printed at the end is deliberate. This is because -s java sets DMGL_RET_POSTFIX. This was added as part of the patch for PR 9861. I've added Terry to the CC list for this PR; perhaps he can explain why it works that way. -- ian at airs dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tj at laurenzo dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29044
[Bug java/29044] Libiberty demangler can not handle new Java mangling.
--- Comment #6 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 09:01 --- I don't understand why this bug has been reported. Are you using an up-to-date libiberty to do the demangling? When I try c++filt --format java, I get Hello.main(java.lang.String[])void which is correct. The exact form of the demangled string was discussed at greeat length in the thread http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00414.html. -- aph at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aph at gcc dot gnu dot org Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29044
[Bug java/29044] Libiberty demangler can not handle new Java mangling.
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 12:31 --- Subject: Re: Libiberty demangler can not handle new Java mangling. > I don't understand why this bug has been reported. The bug was reported because the combination of the mangling change and the demangler postfix behavior messes up GDB. You used to be able to say "break 'jmain.main(java.lang.String[])'" but now that's not found; you'd have to add the trailing void manually. As per your message: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2005-q3/msg00434.html Several affected tests in the GDB testsuite broke. Of course they're somewhat provisional tests because there are earlier tests in the same file which use much more user-friendly forms, that are still not supported by GDB. The Java debug support has not gotten much love lately. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29044
[Bug java/29044] Libiberty demangler can not handle new Java mangling.
--- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 12:31 --- Not a bug then. -- drow at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29044