Get rid of underscore.c

[Mark Mitchell]

--On Friday, September 20, 2002 11:48:25 AM -0400 Andrew Cagney 
<ac131313@ges.redhat.com> wrote:

>> On 12 Sep 2002 19:42:36 +0100, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But why should G++ have its own demangler ?  Why not use the binutils
>>> one ?  (Possible answer: because the G++ guys want to control the
>>> demangler ?)
>>
>>
>> Precisely.  The demangler frequently needs to change to reflect changes
>> in the compiler.  If the demangler is part of the compiler package,
>> updating one involves updating the other.  If it's in binutils, that
>> means I need to update binutils to deal with a compiler issue, something
>> I currently only do every few months.  My life was made easier when
>> c++filt moved to gcc.
>
> Did anyone from GCC even think to propose this binutils change on the
> binutils list?
>
>> Why should binutils have its own demangler?
>
> How about GCC bundle in a program called g++filt while binutils bundle
> c++filt.

There is another issue that nobody has mentioned yet: that code also ends
up in the libstdc++ runtime library.  I don't think binutils developers
are probably used to thinking about the code they're working on as part
of a runtime library, so we could get strange breakage accidentally.

-- 
Mark Mitchell                mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com