Re: Get rid of underscore.c

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

--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