This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB PATCH to disable specific G++ demangling
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Subject: Re: GDB PATCH to disable specific G++ demangling
- From: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:40:04 -0500
- CC: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>, <gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
On 12/19/00 10:02 AM, "Jason Merrill" <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@delorie.com> writes:
>
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 03:42:10 -0500 (EST)
>>> From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> AUTO_DEMANGLING detects the mangling style automatically, and demangles it
>>> based on that.
>>> This change defaults to doing this, now that we have two very different
>>> demangling styles about to common usage, and we previously defaulted to
>>> assuming we had one of these styles (the old abi mangling) if we
>>> determined it was a gcc compiled program, and we were using dwarf or
>>> stabs.
>
>> Thanks for the explanations. I have one question, though: If
>> AUTO_DEMANGLING can detect the mangling style, why was it not used
>> previously? Why did the previous version trust the fact that it was
>> looking at a GCC-compiled program more than it trusted auto-detection?
>
> Because there was only the one GCC mangling scheme, so there was no reason
> to be flexible. And AUTO_DEMANGLING is probably slightly slower.
Yes, by a very small factor.
However, I don't know why this mattered enough for someone to have that code
there.
>
>> The change had to do with how GCC-compiled programs was recognized.
>> The original code didn't get it right, in the DJGPP case. I forget
>> the details, but can dust them off, if that's important.
>
> I don't think it is.
>
> Jason
>