FYI: A new C++ demangler
Andrew Cagney
ac131313@redhat.com
Tue Jul 15 16:17:00 GMT 2003
> 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
More information about the Binutils
mailing list