Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> cagney wrote:
>
>
> > [...]
>
> > > 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.
> > [...]
>
>
> You might be accused of dogmatic monolingualism if you don't accept
> the notion that some such code may be more naturally expressed in a
> higher level language -- that could be one such reason.  Another
> reason of course is the fact that it is already done and working:
> rewriting costs new effort.

High level language?  I guess that rules out C++ then :-)

> (Note that I'm not asserting that the former reason applies strongly
> here; libstdc++-v3/include/bits/demangle.h for example doesn't seem to
> rely much on the C++ language's extra capabilities.)

That was my, and I'm guessing Marks, point.

Andrew

--- Begin Message ---

• From: fche at redhat dot com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
• To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at redhat dot com>
• Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>, "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, GDB <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
• Date: 10 Jul 2003 18:58:28 -0400
• Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler
• References: <20030710143557.GA25588@lucon.org><86znjmp0c4.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org><3F0DD802.6090201@redhat.com>

cagney wrote:

> [...]
> > 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.
> [...]

You might be accused of dogmatic monolingualism if you don't accept
the notion that some such code may be more naturally expressed in a
higher level language -- that could be one such reason.  Another
reason of course is the fact that it is already done and working:
rewriting costs new effort.

(Note that I'm not asserting that the former reason applies strongly
here; libstdc++-v3/include/bits/demangle.h for example doesn't seem to
rely much on the C++ language's extra capabilities.)

- FChE

--- End Message ---