This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>, fche at redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, hjl at lucon dot org
- Date: 15 Jul 2003 12:16:07 -0700
- Subject: Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler
- References: <20030712180228.GA912@doctormoo> <3F142933.1060902@redhat.com><m3vfu3aczu.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
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