This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa] add DMGL_PARAMS (was: new demangler)
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:23:07 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfa] add DMGL_PARAMS (was: new demangler)
- References: <yf2he01vg6z.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com> <m3y8tdfzir.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <yf2d6apvfg2.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com> <m3u141fz28.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <m3ptepfyxh.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <yf28yldvevq.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com> <m3he01fygc.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <yf23cblveh7.fsf@hawaii.kealia.com> <20031216053022.GA28127@nevyn.them.org> <yf2he00u2hq.fsf_-_@hawaii.kealia.com>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:54:57AM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:30:22 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:38:28PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
>
> >> Okay; I'll just stick in the DMGL_PARAMS for now, then - my tests
> >> start passing again with that change. (Or I could rewrite the code
> >> that parses the output to not look for parentheses, I suppose.)
>
> > Do the former for now.
>
> The latter actually should be easy enough given the parsing
> functionality that's already in cp-support.c, but I have no objection
> to the former, which I present here. Is it okay for mainline? Tested
> on i686-pc-linux-gnu, GCC 3.2, DWARF 2; no regressions. (No tests,
> but it's necessary for my current patch awaiting approval to work
> properly.)
>
> David Carlton
> carlton@kealia.com
>
> 2003-12-16 David Carlton <carlton@kealia.com>
>
> * cp-support.c (class_name_from_physname): Add DMGL_PARAMS.
> (method_name_from_physname): Ditto.
Yes, this is fine. Thanks!
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer