From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12211 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 15:44:39 -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 12180 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2003 15:44:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (216.101.126.244) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2003 15:44:38 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id E9AD9C6D0; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:44:37 -0700 (PDT) To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, GDB Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler References: <20030710143557.GA25588@lucon.org> <20030710153608.GA26615@lucon.org> From: David Carlton Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030710153608.GA26615@lucon.org> (H. J. Lu's message of "Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:36:09 -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/msg00132.txt.bz2 On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:36:09 -0700, "H. J. Lu" said: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 08:28:30AM -0700, David Carlton wrote: >> 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. Fair enough; those tests look reasonable to me. > BTW, I am not sure when/if the new demangler will show up in > mainline libiberty. Yeah, I've been following that thread. Sigh. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com