Re: binutils development (was Re: Problems building binutils-000220 snapshot)

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:16:26PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 
>    2. I was told to send my --demangler and --style patch to
>    the gcc mailing list:
> 
>    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-10n/msg00258.html
> 
>    Nothing happened.
> 
> I've explained several times that the cplus-dem.c file in gcc is the
> master copy.  I don't want divergences in the binutils version.  I
> think this is a sensible and reasonable position.  I have not heard
> you explain why it is not.

I never said it was not a sensible and reasonable position. I just
pointed out I did send in a patch.

> 
> Since your patch changes cplus-dem.c, it needs to get into the master
> source.  That is controlled by the gcc maintainers.  I am not a gcc
> maintainer.
> 
> You know as well as I do how to get a patch into gcc.  When I look at
> the message you cite above, I see you mixing completely unrelated
> stuff like some sort of dlopen support with adding GNAT support.
> That's a bad start.  I even see support for Compaq demangling,
> whatever that is, which only works if the user has some sort of .so
> file.  Do you think that is appropriate for GNU code?

Compaq wants to make their C++ compiler available for Linux/alpha. It
needs that feature in ld. I believe it is appropriate for Linux to
support it.

> 
> Actually, neither dlopen support nor GNAT support has anything to do
> with adding --demangler and --style options to the binutils.  Sure,

The whole purpose of --demangler and --style is for dlopen and GNAT.
At least, that was what I had in mind when I implemented them.


H.J.