From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7181 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 20:57:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7131 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2003 20:56:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2003 20:56:54 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h6AKumaM002145; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:56:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6AKult3003483; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:56:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p2/8.12.6/Submit) id h6AKuhDZ003480; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:56:43 +0200 (CEST) To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, GDB Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler References: <20030710143557.GA25588@lucon.org> From: Mark Kettenis Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: "H. J. Lu"'s message of "Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:35:57 -0700" Message-ID: <86znjmp0c4.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 "H. J. Lu" writes: > I will put a new C++ demangler in Linux binutils, which should fix all > known bugs in the old demangler. It is written in C++. It will be > enabled only if there is a working C++ compiler. Otherwise, the old > demangler will be used. Having read the discussion on the GCC mailing list, I am convinced it is undesirable to have two demanglers that have overlapping functionaility for GDB, especially if the demangler is selected based on the build environment as you propose. GDB should be buildable by a ISO C90 compiler, so we can't use C++ for any of its "standard" parts. I could live with making the demangler "optional", and removing the old demangler completely. But only if the new demangler is a major improvement over the old one (which I can't judge). Could someone fix the old demangler, or write a new one in plain C (or re-write the C++ one in C)? Pretty please? Mark