Re: FYI: A new C++ demangler

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> 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.

Fortunatly, that won't happen :-)

> 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.

However, there is the SIM directory .....

Andrew