This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler


"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 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).

Could someone fix the old demangler, or write a new one in
plain C (or re-write the C++ one in C)?  Pretty please?

Mark


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]