From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28234 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2006 20:53:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 28112 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2006 20:53:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:53:31 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FY83k-0000fv-O3; Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:53:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChne?= , Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: D Symbol Demangling Message-ID: <20060424205328.GB27220@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChne?= , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <44462A40.1040004@kuehne.cn> <20060420132004.GB11710@nevyn.them.org> <44495B98.7010407@kuehne.cn> <444AC160.4070808@kuehne.cn> <8f2776cb0604241021xbf7e2djca7cd6a25057d8a3@mail.gmail.com> <44462A40.1040004@kuehne.cn> <20060420132004.GB11710@nevyn.them.org> <44495B98.7010407@kuehne.cn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0604241021xbf7e2djca7cd6a25057d8a3@mail.gmail.com> <44495B98.7010407@kuehne.cn> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:21:15AM -0700, Jim Blandy wrote: > The other demanglers are all in libiberty; shouldn't this one go there, too? Well, the old and new C++ demanglers are in libiberty, and the "Java demangler" is part of that. But there's an Ada demangler in GDB already. On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 12:24:24AM +0200, Thomas Kühne wrote: > I've no problem with assigning the copyright of the demangler to the FSF if > the license issue - as you noted, using more than one license might cause > problems - can be solved. > > The GPL with linking exception would seem to be the best solution for all. > (taken from /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-2-with-linking-exception) > > | As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you > | permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an > | executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, > | and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your > | choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, > | the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent > | module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If > | you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of > | the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do > | so, delete this exception statement from your version. > > I don't know what permissions we need to generate new code under this license; does anyone else know? Do we need to check it with the FSF? They're usually reasonable about such things, but obviously they prefer the stronger GPL when possible. > > And, no offense, but the DD_() thing is horribly ugly and doesn't seem > > to serve any purpose here. Is that for reusing the demangler > > elsewhere? > > Yes it's ugly and not the kind of code I normally write. > The problem: the demangler is currently used with GDB, Valgrind and 3 > in-house tools - thus name and symbol clashes are a real problem. What's the actual interface to the demangler? All I see is a single function: char* DD_(demangle_d)(char*); If that's the case, it ought to be possible to make everything else static by careful use of #include, and then presto - no name clashes. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery