Fix issue 21153 - DWARF: DMD emits the mangled name for DW_AT_name

[Luhrel]

As gdb is intelligent, DW_AT_name is automatically demangled, if necessary.
So, this commit seems useless, however, for data consistency between DW_AT_name and DW_AT_linkage_name, this is necessary.

There's still some DWARF issues with DMD (like the module name before the variable name, see below), but that's for another PR (coming soon).

[dlang-bot]

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @Luhrel! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

• My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
• My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
• I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
• New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

---

If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Auto-close	Bugzilla	Severity	Description
✓	21153	trivial	DWARF: DMD emits the mangled name for DW_AT_name

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + dmd#11540"

[MoonlightSentinel]

Could you add a test case using GDB_SCRIPT?

[Luhrel]

Could you add a test case using GDB_SCRIPT?

Of course.

[MoonlightSentinel]

This should solve some debugging problems (notably in the pubnames section)

Also add a bugzilla issue to the commit title.

[ghost]

As already requested please add a reference to a bugzilla entry please. Create it if required. This is just for the changelog.

[ibuclaw]

DW_AT_name ("bar.x")

If modules are implemented, you'll want to drop the bar part from the AT_name.

[Luhrel]

DW_AT_name ("bar.x")

If modules are implemented, you'll want to drop the bar part from the AT_name.

Yes, but that's another bug 21155

[Luhrel]

@MoonlightSentinel As I'll push a lot of DWARF fixes and enhancements, is there a good way to test all those things ?

With GDB_SCRIPT, I can't check that everything is fine, because gdb doesn't allow us to test the tags etc.
I always can use llvm-dwarfdump or objdump, but the tests are gonna fail with the other compilers.

[MoonlightSentinel]

@MoonlightSentinel As I'll push a lot of DWARF fixes and enhancements, is there a good way to test all those things ?

You could add a dshell test which compiles a test file and check the output of objdump. Future PR's can then extends this test with new checks.

... but the tests are gonna fail with the other compilers.

LDC/GDC already ignore certain dmd specific tests. Your changes don't affect them anyway?

[Luhrel]

@MoonlightSentinel As I'll push a lot of DWARF fixes and enhancements, is there a good way to test all those things ?

You could add a dshell test which compiles a test file and check the output of objdump. Future PR's can then extends this test with new checks.

Yeah, gonna do this.

... but the tests are gonna fail with the other compilers.

LDC/GDC already ignore certain dmd specific tests. Your changes don't affect them anyway?

Yes, my changes only affects DMD.

[Luhrel]

Merde.
The auto-tester fails on some machines.

std.process.ProcessException@std/process.d(885): Executable file not found: objdump

[MoonlightSentinel]

Otherwise LGTM

[MoonlightSentinel]

LGTM. Any objections on the dshell test @wilzbach ?

[wilzbach]

I don't see anything blocking it