libiberty: Would it be reasonable to add support for GnuCOBOL function name demangling?

[Simon Sobisch <simonsobisch@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1569 bytes --]

Hi fellow hackers,

first of all: I'm not sure if this is the correct mailing list for this 
question, but I did not found a separate one and 
gnu.org/software/libiberty redirects to 
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libiberty.pdf - so I'm here.
If there's a better place for this: please drop a note.

I've never "worked" with libiberty directly but am sure I'm using it 
quite regularly with various tools including GDB and valgrind.
Therefore I currently cannot send a patch for the function name 
demangling, but if this is a reasonable thing to add I'd like to work on 
this with someone.

As noted: the first question is: is it reasonable to add support for 
GnuCOBOL?

* How would the demangler know it is to be called? Just "best match" 
(GnuCOBOL modules always have some symbols in it which should be 
available if there is any debugging information in, if that helps)?
* Giving the work of gcc-cobol which was discussed on this mailing list 
some months ago (not sure about its current state) there possibly will 
be a COBOL support be "integrated" - with possibly different name 
mangling. But still - GnuCOBOL is used "in the wild" (for production 
environments) since years (and will be for many years to come, both 
based on GCC and with other compilers) and the name mangling rules did 
not change.

A second question would be: Is there anyone who would be willing to work 
on this with me?
Where would "we" or I start?

Thank you for taking the time to read and possibly answer,
Simon Sobisch

Maintainer GnuCOBOL



[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 7183 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]