binutils development (was Re: Problems building binutils-000220 snapshot)
H . J . Lu
Tue Feb 22 09:29:00 GMT 2000
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:16:26PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 2. I was told to send my --demangler and --style patch to
> the gcc mailing list:
> Nothing happened.
> I've explained several times that the cplus-dem.c file in gcc is the
> master copy. I don't want divergences in the binutils version. I
> think this is a sensible and reasonable position. I have not heard
> you explain why it is not.
I never said it was not a sensible and reasonable position. I just
pointed out I did send in a patch.
> Since your patch changes cplus-dem.c, it needs to get into the master
> source. That is controlled by the gcc maintainers. I am not a gcc
> You know as well as I do how to get a patch into gcc. When I look at
> the message you cite above, I see you mixing completely unrelated
> stuff like some sort of dlopen support with adding GNAT support.
> That's a bad start. I even see support for Compaq demangling,
> whatever that is, which only works if the user has some sort of .so
> file. Do you think that is appropriate for GNU code?
Compaq wants to make their C++ compiler available for Linux/alpha. It
needs that feature in ld. I believe it is appropriate for Linux to
> Actually, neither dlopen support nor GNAT support has anything to do
> with adding --demangler and --style options to the binutils. Sure,
The whole purpose of --demangler and --style is for dlopen and GNAT.
At least, that was what I had in mind when I implemented them.
More information about the Binutils