From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4322 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2002 23:19:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4280 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2002 23:19:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2002 23:19:24 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17wtho-0005CC-00; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:19:04 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17wsmN-0006nd-00; Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:19:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Jim Blandy , David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Setting the demangling style Message-ID: <20021002231943.GA25824@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Berlin , Jim Blandy , David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20021002210413.GA18056@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 07:10:29PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > I would venture nobody noticed because nobody changed the demangling > style, not because it was coded this way. > > > > Perhaps we need to decide what the point of letting users force the > > demangle style is, first. > Assembler printouts. In that case I have to wonder what the point of the feature is; if we always rely on auto anyway, then presumably we'll get it right in assembler printouts too! "set demangle off" is a different story. (And we don't demangle all or most names in assembly code as it is... I think.) So, I have to ask: does anyone consider setting the demangling style to anything besides "auto" to be a useful feature? I don't, for these reasons: - Inconsistent behavior, as Daniel B. points out - Unclear intention - what it should affect - Current general uselessness - the only mangled languages we support right now are actually GNU v2 and GNU v3/"the new ABI" mangling. I don't know what HP aCC C++ support uses offhand but in the future it will be v3. And the current support is all rotten. I'd like to see the command go away if we can't come up with a meaning for it! -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer