From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20384 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2002 03:22:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20342 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2002 03:22:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dberlin.org) (64.246.6.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 03:22:29 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.100] (pool-151-204-231-24.bos.east.verizon.net [151.204.231.24]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by dberlin.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2K3Lpm01721; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:21:51 -0500 Subject: Re: GCC to open the C++ demangle API? From: Daniel Berlin To: Joe Buck Cc: Jason Merrill , Andrew Marlow , gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <200203200215.SAA22138@atrus.synopsys.com> References: <200203200215.SAA22138@atrus.synopsys.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:29:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1016594512.32239.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg01244.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 21:15, Joe Buck wrote: > Andrew Marlow writes: > > > As the OP I would like to chip in at this point. I no longer wish for the > > > API to be opened. I agree with RMS that since there is no standard for > > > name mangling in C++ the most appropriate license for this code is the GPL > > > rather than the LGPL. > > Jason Merrill writes: > > But there IS a standard for name mangling. And there are at least two > > other vendors with compatible compilers: HP and Intel. > > > > http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/abi.html#mangling > > Furthermore RMS has already agreed to change the license, so this issue is > now moot and we can argue about something else. :-) Guys and Gals, We need to slow down the rate at which we argue about random, mostly (or completely) moot issues. If you look, just this week we've gone through at least two or three of them. In two days. This means we have to make up new issues for the next week or two, since there's really nothing left. In the future, we need to be more careful to make sure we don't argue pointless issues simultaneously, or else we run the risk of running out again. Thanks for your attention to this important matter, Dan > >