This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: C++ demangler horrors
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, neroden at twcny dot rr dot com, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 27 Jun 2003 23:03:37 +0200
- Subject: Re: C++ demangler horrors
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <20030626170806.GA1119@doctormoo><20030626172655.GA21939@lucon.org><200306261848.OAA24657@caip.rutgers.edu><20030626185150.GD23280@lucon.org><200306261859.OAA26891@caip.rutgers.edu><m33chve2au.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><20030627194743.GA14028@lucon.org>
"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
| On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 09:41:13PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | > It uses <vector> and <string>.
| > | > H.J.
| > |
| > | Can't you write mini replacements?
| >
| > I think it would not be a good idea to take that road.
| > I would not recommand libstdc++-v3 to include mini implementations of
| > this or that functionality already part of our standard distribution
| > each time a source code managment issue surfaces.
| >
|
| It will be used for libiberty, not libstdc++-v3.
I'm not a big fan of code duplication. Having to maintain two
implementations of the demangler is not something I would recommand.
I really appreciate the effort you invested in this issue.
Still, I think going further proving mini versions of standard containers
is overkill and a recipe for long-term confusion.
This is a classic boostrap problem, if the only tools available for
boostrapping are bare metal and genuine C compiler, then, one can
just add a bootstrap stage -- building cc1plus and libstdc++. But, I
suspect that most of the time, in addition of the C compiler, we also
have a C++ compiler.
-- Gaby