This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils 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]

Re: Fix C++ demangler in libiberty?

From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
To: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:16:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Fix C++ demangler in libiberty?
References: <20030414095748.A17723@lucon.org> <200304141704.h3EH4dXw023750@envy.delorie.com>

On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 01:04:39PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > The demangler in libstdc++ works correctly. What is the plan to fix
> > the C++ demangler in libiberty?
> 
> There is no plan.  I argued against yet another demangler, and lost.
> If you can fix it, great.  If you can convince the g++ folks to fix
> it, great.  Otherwise, it will probably stay broken for a while.

I can understand people don't want to fix something while there is a
working one. Can we add those testcases to libiberty first and mark
them XFAIL? Can we put C++ code in libiberty, which is conditioned
on the availability of a working C++ compiler? In the meantime, I
will see if I can put some black magic in my Linux binutils.

H.J.

References:
- Fix C++ demangler in libiberty?
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: Fix C++ demangler in libiberty?
  - From: DJ Delorie

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]