Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters.

[Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>]

The following reply was made to PR c++/5390; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters.
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:14:43 +0100

 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:03:32AM -0600, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
 > 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
 
 It does.  That is the whole point: 2.95 generates mangled names that are
 not supported, while the mangled names produces by older version ARE
 supported.
 
 > - 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?
 
 The reason I filed the PR was because my library generated a mangled
 name that made libiberty core.  As a library developer I *have* to
 support ALL versions of gcc(/libiberty) and was able to think of
 a workaround (somehow make sure that the template parameter constant
 where always < 10).  It is never urgent for to have something fixed:
 I have to work with the current version (2.95.1 and up, all of them)
 anyway.  So, as far as I am concerned you can close this PR.
 (Personally, I'd fix it though if I were you - but I am a perfectionist).
 
 -- 
 Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>