FYI: A new C++ demangler

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote
| > 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.

I think the completely  demented idea is insisting that "lot of
systems don't ship with a C++ compiler" and continuing to demande to
continue a broken implementation. 

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> wrote:
| However, there is the SIM directory .....

Yes.  Apparently Nathanael doesn't seem to understand that C++
can be used productively for system programming.

-- Gaby