Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 941 bytes --]

> cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>> [...]
> 
>> > Could someone fix the old demangler, or write a new one in
>> > plain C (or re-write the C++ one in C)?  Pretty please?
> 
>> 
>> Yes.  There's no reason for the underlying demangler algorithm to be
>> implemented in vanila ISO C 90, and then wrap it for the C++ side.
>> [...]
> 
> 
> You might be accused of dogmatic monolingualism if you don't accept
> the notion that some such code may be more naturally expressed in a
> higher level language -- that could be one such reason.  Another
> reason of course is the fact that it is already done and working:
> rewriting costs new effort.

High level language?  I guess that rules out C++ then :-)

> (Note that I'm not asserting that the former reason applies strongly
> here; libstdc++-v3/include/bits/demangle.h for example doesn't seem to
> rely much on the C++ language's extra capabilities.)

That was my, and I'm guessing Marks, point.

Andrew


[-- Attachment #2: mailbox-message://ac131313@movemail/fsf/gdb/misc#1138377 --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2991 bytes --]

From: fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>, binutils@sources.redhat.com, GDB <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler
Date: 10 Jul 2003 18:58:28 -0400
Message-ID: <o5znjmhtuz.fsf@toenail.toronto.redhat.com>


cagney wrote:

> [...]
> > Could someone fix the old demangler, or write a new one in
> > plain C (or re-write the C++ one in C)?  Pretty please?
> 
> Yes.  There's no reason for the underlying demangler algorithm to be
> implemented in vanila ISO C 90, and then wrap it for the C++ side.
> [...]

You might be accused of dogmatic monolingualism if you don't accept
the notion that some such code may be more naturally expressed in a
higher level language -- that could be one such reason.  Another
reason of course is the fact that it is already done and working:
rewriting costs new effort.

(Note that I'm not asserting that the former reason applies strongly
here; libstdc++-v3/include/bits/demangle.h for example doesn't seem to
rely much on the C++ language's extra capabilities.)

- FChE