From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41471 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2018 10:40:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 41444 invoked by uid 89); 7 Dec 2018 10:40:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1016, H*i:sk:e720841, H*f:sk:e720841 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2018 10:40:19 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E199030821A4; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:40:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-117-214.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.214]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66A805DA64; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:40:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wB7AeEG7006548; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 11:40:15 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id wB7AeBF1006546; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 11:40:11 +0100 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 10:40:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Nick Clifton Cc: Jason Merrill , Pedro Alves , Ian Lance Taylor , Richard Biener , matz@gcc.gnu.org, Scott Gayou , Tom Tromey , gcc-patches List , Binutils Subject: Re: RFC: libiberty PATCH to disable demangling of ancient mangling schemes Message-ID: <20181207104011.GD12380@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <460cb971-0e21-1e3e-4920-8b3ee7290cf7@redhat.com> <736e8303-b724-f96d-54f5-46bff99fa34d@redhat.com> <57d33aa7-4e37-a09c-4bdc-974b5f654d33@redhat.com> <2928eac9-9363-ddb8-21eb-df878d2d4837@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00440.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:27:17AM +0000, Nick Clifton wrote: > >> Looks good to me. Independently, do you see a reason not to disable the > >> old demangler entirely? > > > > Like so. Does anyone object to this? These mangling schemes haven't > > been relevant in decades. > > I am not really familiar with this old scheme, so please excuse my ignorance > in asking these questions: > > * How likely is it that there are old toolchain in use out there that still > use the v2 mangling ? Ie I guess that I am asking "which generation(s) > of gcc used v2 mangling ?" GCC 3.0 and up used the new (Itanium C++ ABI) mangling, 2.95 and older used the old mangling (2.96-RH used the new mangling I believe). So you need compiler older than 17.5 years to have the old mangling. Such a compiler didn't support most of the contemporarily used platforms though at all (e.g. x86-64, powerpc64le, aarch64, I believe not even powerpc64-linux). Jakub