From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26573 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2003 16:06:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26559 invoked by uid 71); 7 Mar 2003 16:06:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030307160600.26558.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00355.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/5390; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Carlo Wood Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:03:32 -0600 (CST) Carlo, first this: When I complained that this PR has been sitting idle despite the fact that it has a patch, I complained to the ones who are in power of reviewing and applying patches. That it has not been reviewed is not your fault. We are grateful for people sending in patches, and I, too, am embarrassed if we turn them down by just not taking notice of their work... > > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > > State-Changed-Why: > > Carlo, this report has been sitting idly for a year now. > > What is the present state? Is it still unsolved, or did > > your patch go in? > [...] > > c++filt of 3.3 does not demangle the correct mangled names (at least the > ones I tried) - while it does demangle the old (wrong) mangled names. As time progresses, this is becoming more and more irrelevant: as far as I understand you, - gcc since 3.0 has a different mangling scheme, which isn't concerned in this PR - gcc up to 2.95 has never generated the cases that your patch addresses - gcc 2.95 is certainly not going to be fixed to generate them any more - gcc 2.95 is slowly dying out. The question thus is: if people are not overly interested in your patch (which is regrettable, but apparently the case), then we can as well close the PR. Since if we don't, we'll ask the same question again in a year, and then people will care even less about 2.95. What's your opinion on this? Thanks Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/