This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ demangler horrors
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>,Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>,Oscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo dot es>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:33:43 -0700
- Subject: Re: C++ demangler horrors
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 02:57:27PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 12:28:40PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 2003, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The original problem is demangler depends on libstdc++ and on Cygwin
> > > libstdc++ may depend on libiberty.
> >
> > winsup depends on libiberty and newlib, not libstdc++. libstdc++
> > depends on winsup. However, looking at the Makefile.tpl we have now,
> > I don't see this dependency; why is that? Am I getting it wrong?
>
> You're right. From my TODO:
> - all-target-winsup should depend on maybe-all-target-libstdc++-v3 ?
>
> I'm pretty sure about that, since highly parallel cygwin builds give an
> error now when winsup tries to link to libstdc++. Someone should fix
> it :)
I know nothing about Cygwin. If winsup depends on libstdc++-v3, it
should also depend on libiberty. The question is if we can make
libiberty depends on libstdc++-v3.
I uploaded a new patch to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11028
to implememnt:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-06/msg02404.html
I think it is better than having another <vector> while there is one
already.
H.J.