This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB 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] |
Frank Eigler said:
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.
Look, if you want to *add a build requirement* to GDB, so that it *requires* a C++ compiler to build, then then new C++ demangler will
be fine for GDB.
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.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |