From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23356 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 21:17:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23323 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2003 21:17:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2003 21:17:55 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687102B6E; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:17:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F0DD802.6090201@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:17:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis , "H. J. Lu" Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, GDB Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler References: <20030710143557.GA25588@lucon.org> <86znjmp0c4.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2 > "H. J. Lu" writes: > > >> I will put a new C++ demangler in Linux binutils, which should fix all >> known bugs in the old demangler. It is written in C++. It will be >> enabled only if there is a working C++ compiler. Otherwise, the old >> demangler will be used. > > > Having read the discussion on the GCC mailing list, I am convinced it > is undesirable to have two demanglers that have overlapping > functionaility for GDB, especially if the demangler is selected based > on the build environment as you propose. > > GDB should be buildable by a ISO C90 compiler, so we can't use C++ for > any of its "standard" parts. > > I could live with making the demangler "optional", and removing the > old demangler completely. But only if the new demangler is a major > improvement over the old one (which I can't judge). GDB can't :-( > Could someone fix the old demangler, or write a new one in > plain C (or re-write the C++ one in C)? Pretty please? Yes. There's no reason for the underlying demangler algorithm to be implemented in vanila ISO C 90, and then wrap it for the C++ side. HJ, as a start why not separate out and submit these new tests you refered to? Knowing what's broken is a good starting point. Andrew