> Indeed, looks like I don't have that.  I have "interfacesS".
> I've attached the whole file.

That explains it :).

> So it may be that we still need to add another special case
> for Ada somewhere.  Would old GDB from before the C++
> wildmatching pass this test for you?

I went binary searching for the source of the regression and
when I found that it was "caused" by the change requiring variables
without debugging information to be cast before they can be printed,
I gently head-slapped myself, adjusted the testcase to use something
other than an integer variable, and voila - even GDB 7.10 suffers
from the problem.  We just didn't see it for integer variables simply
because we were lucky!

I ran out of time again today, but at least the WIP patch got
augmented with a testcase that currently fails before the patch
is applied.

I think the patch itself is probably correct, although I'd like
to do some archeology to understand the comment attached to
that location. I'm pretty confused by it, when we could simply
say that symbols from languages that do not follow the C++ mangling
should not be demangled by gdb_demangle -- at least for as long
as gdb_demangle is equivalent to cplusplus_demangle in practice...

And just as a reminder for myself, I said in my other email
last week that I wanted also to review all the calls to gdb_demangle.

-- 
Joel