This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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: RFC: libiberty PATCH to disable demangling of ancient mangling schemes

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, matz at gcc dot gnu dot org, sgayou at redhat dot com, tom at tromey dot com, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:48:43 -0500
Subject: Re: RFC: libiberty PATCH to disable demangling of ancient mangling schemes
References: <87muprdko7.fsf@redhat.com> <20181130084211.GX12380@tucnak> <173817ca-0aa0-e1a2-6725-37e079ead545@redhat.com> <m3woousm8n.fsf@pepe.airs.com> <20181130140330.GA12380@tucnak> <fa1abe9c-7545-6a48-cbf0-97b993345523@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc1gTSXgSiJSFKEWaE0UTGbi45-mWHKJnUb4Wvjp86bbFQ@mail.gmail.com> <460cb971-0e21-1e3e-4920-8b3ee7290cf7@redhat.com> <CAKOQZ8zspME4gzoRw4xgFcShoqeUfp_e=Og=4S-yKn4EehokeA@mail.gmail.com> <736e8303-b724-f96d-54f5-46bff99fa34d@redhat.com> <57d33aa7-4e37-a09c-4bdc-974b5f654d33@redhat.com> <c7c959ca-b8bf-bd3e-a65d-bb274a3118d3@redhat.com> <2928eac9-9363-ddb8-21eb-df878d2d4837@redhat.com> <CADzB+2n6kz=9zLzordWp3gqW+hrLHBhQJ-5p5Lt8Stqv97=nBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc1cvVBsv=_cPkw4Up=axBJTbjpgmC8a-1waq0biejW3Xw@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/7/18 6:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:22 PM Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:


On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:14 AM Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:


Looks good to me.  Independently, do you see a reason not to disable the
old demangler entirely?


Like so.  Does anyone object to this?  These mangling schemes haven't
been relevant in decades.


Why #ifdef the code?  Just rip it out?

I was thinking as an intermediate measure in case some user wanted itfor some reason, but I'd be fine with that as well.


Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: libiberty PATCH to disable demangling of ancient mangling schemes
  - From: Eric Gallager

References:
- Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v3]
  - From: Richard Biener
- Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v3]
  - From: Nick Clifton
- Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v3]
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor via binutils
- Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v4]
  - From: Nick Clifton
- Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v4]
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v5]
  - From: Nick Clifton
- Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v5]
  - From: Jason Merrill
- RFC: libiberty PATCH to disable demangling of ancient mangling schemes
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: RFC: libiberty PATCH to disable demangling of ancient mangling schemes
  - From: Richard Biener

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