From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-14739-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 2901 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 15:36:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 2873 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2003 15:36:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.202.55)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2003 15:36:10 -0000
Received: from lucon.org ([12.234.88.5]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP
          id <2003071015360901100im0s8e>; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:36:09 +0000
Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 075E02C510; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:36:09 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:36:00 -0000
From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com>
Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler
Message-ID: <20030710153608.GA26615@lucon.org>
References: <20030710143557.GA25588@lucon.org> <yf265maz9i9.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <yf265maz9i9.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2

On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 08:28:30AM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:35:57 -0700, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> said:
> 
> > I will put a new C++ demangler in Linux binutils, which should fix all
> > known bugs in the old demangler.
> 
> Just to clarify: is the output of the new demangler exactly the same
> as the output of the old demangler in all cases where the old
> demangler is correct?  Because if the new demangler does go into the
> mainline libiberty, GDB will care about the details of its output.

There is a demangler testsuite in libiberty and I added a few new
tests which are failed with the old demangler. The new demangler
passed all of them. I assume the outputs must be the same.

BTW, I am not sure when/if the new demangler will show up in mainline
libiberty. That is why I am putting it in my Linux binutils. People
can also apply it to their own gdb source to get a better demangler.


H.J.