From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10427 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 15:43:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10131 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2003 15:42:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2003 15:42:58 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6AFgtop013368; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:42:55 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6AFgtHK009714; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:42:55 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6AFgtuY009713; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:42:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:43:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200307101542.h6AFgtuY009713@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@kealia.com, hjl@lucon.org Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00185.txt.bz2 I will throw the new demangler on my gdb test bed and look for regressions. I'm sure H. J. has the demangler test suite covered and I can do the gdb test suite. I have kind of a silly question. Do I need to rebuild binutils and/or gcc with the new demangler, or can I just rebuild gdb? That is, do gcc or binutils ever need to run the demangler while compiling? Regarding the controversy about adding a demangler written in C++, I am neutral about that. I'll just provide gdb test results. Michael C