Re: Mangle question

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

> > Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
> 
> > We now iterate through until the first valid "parse" of the mangled name
> > is found.
> 
> Since you're appointed the old-mangling maintainer IIRC and
> you're discussing the effect of my patch, could you please
> review (the rest of)
> <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-07/msg00161.html>?
> (RFA: Patch for name-signature delimiter demangler bug, with
> testcases)?
Sure, but it might not be until early next week.
I'm in the process of moving from summer to school, so my regular
computer is in transit, and i won't have a fast enough net connection to
check out all the stuff i need to check out until next week.

 > 
> The code for this and an underscore-related patch in
> <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-07/msg00099.html>
> (which was later approved) was seemingly accidentally checked
> in, by you in binutils/libiberty and by Jason Merrill in
> GCC/libiberty IIRC, but not the matching ChangeLog entry and
> testcases.  See also
> <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-08/msg00761.html>.
> 
> I'll fix it, but I think I need an "ok", or the checkin is just
> to be considered an accident.

It was actually on purpose.
GDB tests were failing left and right because of bad demangling, and
since your patch had been approved, and libiberty in the binutils
repository gets replaced with the newest from the gcc repository every so
often, so it was checked in (I asked what the official process is to check
in a patch that is going to be approved for gcc libiberty, but needs to be
in gdb/binutils libiberty until we get the newest from gcc, and he answer
as to just sayyou are making a change, wait 3 hours, and check it in.
So i did just that).

--Dan
 > >
Thanks. > > brgds, H-P >