Rev. 9438 question

[Alpha]

By this new method, if we have __UnnamedStruct111 and file #1 this is the 11th unnamed struct, but file #11 has unnamed struct 1.  Are they merged?  Should we instead use unnamedTmp.Printf(_T("%s%s%lu_%lu"), ...) so we have __UnnamedStruct1_11 and __UnnamedStruct11_1 ?

[oBFusCATed]

I think we must find a way to remove these __UnnamedStruct entries at all...

[ToApolytoXaos]

By this new method, if we have __UnnamedStruct111 and file #1 this is the 11th unnamed struct, but file #11 has unnamed struct 1.  Are they merged?  Should we instead use unnamedTmp.Printf(_T("%s%s%lu_%lu"), ...) so we have __UnnamedStruct1_11 and __UnnamedStruct11_1 ?

Alpha, may I ask where did you find this? I'm interested in such peculiar things and I would like to take a look at it.

[Alpha]

Relevant changes are:

Code

http://cb.biplab.in/websvn/comp.php?repname=codeblocks&compare[]=/@9437&compare[]=/@9438

(Found when reading through the log messages.)

[ollydbg]

By this new method, if we have __UnnamedStruct111 and file #1 this is the 11th unnamed struct, but file #11 has unnamed struct 1.  Are they merged?  Should we instead use unnamedTmp.Printf(_T("%s%s%lu_%lu"), ...) so we have __UnnamedStruct1_11 and __UnnamedStruct11_1 ?

Hi, Alpha, thanks for the review, indeed this is a bug. I fix this bug in rev 9443 by adding an underscore between file index and token index.