Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>]

Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:

> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote
> | > We *don't* want to add such a build requirement for GCC or binutils,
> | > for very good reasons (a lot of systems don't ship with a C++
> | > compiler).  HJ keeps proposing a *completely* demented idea, which
> | > is that the new demangler will be used if a C++ compiler happens to
> | > be lying around during build, and otherwise the broken demangler
> | > will be used.  I wish he'd see what's wrong with that picture.
> 
> I think the completely  demented idea is insisting that "lot of
> systems don't ship with a C++ compiler" and continuing to demande to
> continue a broken implementation. 

But the GNU binutils are intended to be widely portable, and on some
systems the GNU binutils are required in order to build g++, and some
systems really don't ship with a C++ compiler.

If we want to rewrite the GNU binutils in C++, that would be a
reasonable discussion, and in fact C++ would bring a number of
advantages.  But it makes no sense to try to sneak a C++ requirement
in by the back door.

Also, who exactly is demanding to continue a broken implementation?
It really can not be all that difficult to fix the current demangler.

Ian