Re: C++ demangler horrors

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 11:03:37PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> | 
> | 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.

Exactly.  More to the point, we have yet to find a volunteer to maintain
the /new/ new demangler.  It would be discourteous to expect Carlo to
maintain both the real demangler as well as this "adapted" one.

Someone has volunteered to write or submit miniature versions of string
and vector, but I haven't heard whether he also plans to maintain those.

This is turning into a mess.


> 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.

Yes, and what's more, the extra bootstrap stage(s) that people seem
determined to avoid only needs to be done /once/, ever.  Then the system
/has/ a C++ compiler.  What's more, it's a damn good one, because it's ours!

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams