FYI: A new C++ demangler

[Nathanael Nerode]

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.

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.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html