From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 667 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2018 04:50:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 605 invoked by uid 89); 16 Dec 2018 04:50:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:756, H*f:CADzB, H*i:CADzB, speak X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 04:50:02 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FBFA1E093; Sat, 15 Dec 2018 23:50:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RFC: libiberty PATCH to disable demangling of ancient mangling schemes To: Jason Merrill , Tom Tromey , Pedro Alves Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Nick Clifton , Ian Lance Taylor , Richard Biener , matz@gcc.gnu.org, Scott Gayou , gcc-patches List , Binutils , GDB Patches References: <460cb971-0e21-1e3e-4920-8b3ee7290cf7@redhat.com> <736e8303-b724-f96d-54f5-46bff99fa34d@redhat.com> <57d33aa7-4e37-a09c-4bdc-974b5f654d33@redhat.com> <2928eac9-9363-ddb8-21eb-df878d2d4837@redhat.com> <20181207104011.GD12380@tucnak> <875zw5cjn9.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <2f543a8b-f440-5958-c5ce-3650db96d2e7@simark.ca> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 04:50:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00178.txt.bz2 On 2018-12-14 5:39 p.m., Jason Merrill wrote: > GDB/binutils folks, how do you want to handle this? Shall I go ahead > with this patch, with the understanding that there will be associated > changes necessary when merging it into the binutils-gdb repository, or > go with the small disabling patch to start with? Hi Jason >From the GDB point of view, I don't see any problem. Please proceed with the cleanup, it should be quite easy to adjust our code when we sync libiberty. There is a usage of cplus_mangle_opname in binutils/stabs.c, and I can't speak for binutils. But speaking of cplus_mangle_opname, shouldn't you also remove the declaration in include/demangle.h? Simon