From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25865 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2003 19:16:25 -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 25823 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 19:16:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (63.201.54.26) by sources.redhat.com with QMTP; 15 Jul 2003 19:16:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 27592 invoked by uid 10); 15 Jul 2003 19:16:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 4404 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2003 19:16:07 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ac131313@redhat.com, neroden@twcny.rr.com, fche@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, hjl@lucon.org, gdr@integrable-solutions.net To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: Andrew Cagney , Nathanael Nerode , fche@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, hjl@lucon.org Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler References: <20030712180228.GA912@doctormoo> <3F142933.1060902@redhat.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > Nathanael Nerode wrote > | > We *don't* want to add such a build requirement for GCC or binutils, > | > for very good reasons (a lot of systems don't ship with a C++ > | > compiler). HJ keeps proposing a *completely* demented idea, which > | > is that the new demangler will be used if a C++ compiler happens to > | > be lying around during build, and otherwise the broken demangler > | > will be used. I wish he'd see what's wrong with that picture. > > I think the completely demented idea is insisting that "lot of > systems don't ship with a C++ compiler" and continuing to demande to > continue a broken implementation. But the GNU binutils are intended to be widely portable, and on some systems the GNU binutils are required in order to build g++, and some systems really don't ship with a C++ compiler. If we want to rewrite the GNU binutils in C++, that would be a reasonable discussion, and in fact C++ would bring a number of advantages. But it makes no sense to try to sneak a C++ requirement in by the back door. Also, who exactly is demanding to continue a broken implementation? It really can not be all that difficult to fix the current demangler. Ian