From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27707 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 15:28:31 -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 27693 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2003 15:28:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (216.101.126.244) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2003 15:28:30 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 31FE1C6D0; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT) To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, GDB Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler References: <20030710143557.GA25588@lucon.org> From: David Carlton Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030710143557.GA25588@lucon.org> (H. J. Lu's message of "Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:35:57 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00128.txt.bz2 On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:35:57 -0700, "H. J. Lu" 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. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com