| Summary: | [3.3 only?] Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | gcc | Reporter: | carlo |
| Component: | other | Assignee: | Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | critical | CC: | bangerth, bangerth, carlo, dj, gcc-bugs, mark |
| Priority: | P2 | ||
| Version: | 3.1 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 3.3.1 | ||
| Host: | Target: | ||
| Build: | Known to work: | ||
| Known to fail: | Last reconfirmed: | 2003-06-14 21:44:38 | |
| Attachments: | dem2.patch | ||
|
Description
carlo
2002-01-15 10:16:00 UTC
Fix: Apply attached patch. From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: dj@redhat.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: other/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:35:23 +0100 --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline As promised, sending this patch also to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org The following patch fixes the problem that an integral template parameter larger than 9 or smaller than -9 was not demangled correctly (and even led to a core dump in libiberty). (This is only related to the old ABI, g++-2.95.x thus). Basically the change is as follows: Instead of reading integer numbers as [m]<digit> or _[m]<digit>[<digit>...]_ It now simply reads [m]<digit>[<digit>...] or _[m]<digit>[<digit>...]_ This is not a problem since g++-2.95.x never mangles names in a way that there would follow a digit that does not belong to the number. However, the testsuite assumed that this was the case and was testing several incorrect mangled names. I wrote little test cases to generate the symbols used in order to make sure that g++-2.95.3 indeed does generate mangled names as I thought it was. This patch also incorporates these changes (testsuite/demangle-expected). Obviously, after applying this test we get: ~/c/src/libiberty>make check make[1]: Entering directory `/home/carlo/c/src/libiberty/testsuite' /bin/sh ./regress-demangle ./demangle-expected All 646 tests passed make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/carlo/c/src/libiberty/testsuite' -- Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dem2.patch" 2002-01-10 Carlo Wood <carlo@gnu.org> * cplus-dem.c (demangle_integral_value): Accept multi-digit numbers that do not start with an underscore; This is needed for integer template parameters. This doesn't break anything because multi-digit numbers are never followed by a digit. * testsuite/demangle-expected: Corrected all mangled test cases with multi-digit template parameters: g++ 2.95.x does not generate underscores around these parameters. Index: cplus-dem.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/libiberty/cplus-dem.c,v retrieving revision 1.27 diff -u -d -p -r1.27 cplus-dem.c --- cplus-dem.c 2002/01/03 00:25:57 1.27 +++ cplus-dem.c 2002/01/15 17:45:04 @@ -1787,40 +1787,54 @@ demangle_integral_value (work, mangled, /* By default, we let the number decide whether we shall consume an underscore. */ - int consume_following_underscore = 0; + int multidigit_without_leading_underscore = 0; int leave_following_underscore = 0; success = 0; - /* Negative numbers are indicated with a leading `m'. */ - if (**mangled == 'm') - { - string_appendn (s, "-", 1); - (*mangled)++; - } - else if (mangled[0][0] == '_' && mangled[0][1] == 'm') + if (**mangled == '_') { - /* Since consume_count_with_underscores does not handle the - `m'-prefix we must do it here, using consume_count and - adjusting underscores: we have to consume the underscore - matching the prepended one. */ - consume_following_underscore = 1; - string_appendn (s, "-", 1); - (*mangled) += 2; + if (mangled[0][1] == 'm') + { + /* Since consume_count_with_underscores does not handle the + `m'-prefix we must do it here, using consume_count and + adjusting underscores: we have to consume the underscore + matching the prepended one. */ + multidigit_without_leading_underscore = 1; + string_appendn (s, "-", 1); + (*mangled) += 2; + } + else + { + /* Do not consume a following underscore; + consume_count_with_underscores will consume what + should be consumed. */ + leave_following_underscore = 1; + } } - else if (**mangled == '_') + else { - /* Do not consume a following underscore; - consume_following_underscore will consume what should be - consumed. */ + /* Negative numbers are indicated with a leading `m'. */ + if (**mangled == 'm') + { + string_appendn (s, "-", 1); + (*mangled)++; + } + /* Since consume_count_with_underscores does not handle + multi-digit numbers that do not start with an underscore, + and this number can be an integer template parameter, + we have to call consume_count. */ + multidigit_without_leading_underscore = 1; + /* These multi-digit numbers never end on an underscore, + so if there is one then don't eat it. */ leave_following_underscore = 1; } - /* We must call consume_count if we expect to remove a trailing - underscore, since consume_count_with_underscores expects - the leading underscore (that we consumed) if it is to handle + /* We must call consume_count if we have no leading underscore, + since consume_count_with_underscores expects one (that we + consumed or wasn't there to begin with) if it is to handle multi-digit numbers. */ - if (consume_following_underscore) + if (multidigit_without_leading_underscore) value = consume_count (mangled); else value = consume_count_with_underscores (mangled); @@ -1838,7 +1852,7 @@ demangle_integral_value (work, mangled, is wrong. If other (arbitrary) cases are followed by an underscore, we need to do something more radical. */ - if ((value > 9 || consume_following_underscore) + if ((value > 9 || multidigit_without_leading_underscore) && ! leave_following_underscore && **mangled == '_') (*mangled)++; Index: testsuite/demangle-expected =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected,v retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -d -p -r1.6 demangle-expected --- demangle-expected 2001/12/13 00:05:32 1.6 +++ demangle-expected 2002/01/15 17:45:06 @@ -2476,15 +2476,15 @@ fn__FPQ21n1cPMQ21n1cFPQ21n1c_i fn(n::c *, int (n::c::*)(n::c *)) # --format=gnu -f__FGt3Bar1i21i +f__FGt3Bar1i2G1i f(Bar<2>, i) # --format=gnu -f__FGt3Bar1i_21_i +f__FGt3Bar1i21i f(Bar<21>, int) # --format=gnu -f__FGt3Bar1i24XY_t +f__FGt3Bar1i2G4XY_t f(Bar<2>, XY_t) # --format=gnu @@ -2492,11 +2492,11 @@ foo__H1Zt2TA2ZRCiZt2NA1Ui9_X01_i int foo<TA<int const &, NA<9> > >(TA<int const &, NA<9> >) # --format=gnu -foo__H1Zt2TA2ZcZt2NA1Ui_20__X01_i +foo__H1Zt2TA2ZcZt2NA1Ui20_X01_i int foo<TA<char, NA<20> > >(TA<char, NA<20> >) # --format=gnu -foo__H1Zt2TA2ZiZt8N___A___1Ui_99__X01_i +foo__H1Zt2TA2ZiZt8N___A___1Ui99_X01_i int foo<TA<int, N___A___<99> > >(TA<int, N___A___<99> >) # --format=gnu @@ -2508,7 +2508,7 @@ foo__H1Zt2TA2ZRCiZt2NA1im9_X01_i int foo<TA<int const &, NA<-9> > >(TA<int const &, NA<-9> >) # --format=gnu -foo__H1Zt2TA2ZcZt2NA1i_m20__X01_i +foo__H1Zt2TA2ZcZt2NA1im20_X01_i int foo<TA<char, NA<-20> > >(TA<char, NA<-20> >) # --format=gnu @@ -2520,7 +2520,7 @@ foo__H1Zt2TA2ZiZt4N__A1im9_X01_i int foo<TA<int, N__A<-9> > >(TA<int, N__A<-9> >) # --format=gnu -foo__H1Zt2TA2ZiZt4N__A1i_m99__X01_i +foo__H1Zt2TA2ZiZt4N__A1im99_X01_i int foo<TA<int, N__A<-99> > >(TA<int, N__A<-99> >) # --format=gnu @@ -2528,15 +2528,15 @@ __opi__t2TA2ZiZt4N__A1i9 TA<int, N__A<9> >::operator int(void) # --format=gnu -__opi__t2TA2ZiZt8N___A___1i_m99_ +__opi__t2TA2ZiZt8N___A___1im99 TA<int, N___A___<-99> >::operator int(void) # --format=gnu -foo___bar__baz_____H1Zt2TA2ZiZt8N___A___1i_99__X01_i +foo___bar__baz_____H1Zt2TA2ZiZt8N___A___1i99_X01_i int foo___bar__baz___<TA<int, N___A___<99> > >(TA<int, N___A___<99> >) # --format=gnu -foo__bar___foobar_____t2TA2ZiZt8N___A___1i_m99_ +foo__bar___foobar_____t2TA2ZiZt8N___A___1im99 TA<int, N___A___<-99> >::foo__bar___foobar___(void) # --format=gnu --mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+-- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Cc: <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, <dj@redhat.com>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org> Subject: Re: other/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 22:59:00 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Carlo Wood wrote: > As promised, sending this patch also to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org > > The following patch fixes the problem that an integral template > parameter larger than 9 or smaller than -9 was not demangled > correctly (and even led to a core dump in libiberty). > (This is only related to the old ABI, g++-2.95.x thus). > > This is not a problem since g++-2.95.x never mangles > names in a way that there would follow a digit that > does not belong to the number. However, the testsuite > assumed that this was the case and was testing several > incorrect mangled names. IIRC, this is because of blessed backward-compatibility. Names mangled with earlier GCC releases (earlier than gcc-2.95) are supposed to be demanglable (when at all possible). If you have checked this, please say so. Maybe it's not important any longer. brgds, H-P From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dj@redhat.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: other/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 05:16:21 +0100 On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:59:00PM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > IIRC, this is because of blessed backward-compatibility. Names > mangled with earlier GCC releases (earlier than gcc-2.95) are > supposed to be demanglable (when at all possible). If you have > checked this, please say so. Maybe it's not important any > longer. I didn't check compilers older than 2.95. But even if this patch would break demangling for those older compilers, then it seems more important to me to have 2.95 working and older broken then vica versa. It is not possible to support both. That last remark is based on the following logic: When decoding integers as <digit>[<digit>...] would break something, then apparently the older compilers will generate mangled names like: "__FGt3Bar1i21i" demanding that you treat the "i2" as a single digit integer (resulting: f(Bar<2>, i)). But g++-2.95 will generate "__FGt3Bar1i21i" for f(Bar<21>, int) and hence it is impossible to support both. I'd say: demangle "__FGt3Bar1i21i" as f(Bar<21>, int) ... -- Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-Why: Carlo, this report has been sitting idly for a year now.
What is the present state? Is it still unsolved, or did
your patch go in?
Thanks
Wolfgang
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org> Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:03:32 -0600 (CST) Carlo, first this: When I complained that this PR has been sitting idle despite the fact that it has a patch, I complained to the ones who are in power of reviewing and applying patches. That it has not been reviewed is not your fault. We are grateful for people sending in patches, and I, too, am embarrassed if we turn them down by just not taking notice of their work... > > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > > State-Changed-Why: > > Carlo, this report has been sitting idly for a year now. > > What is the present state? Is it still unsolved, or did > > your patch go in? > [...] > > c++filt of 3.3 does not demangle the correct mangled names (at least the > ones I tried) - while it does demangle the old (wrong) mangled names. As time progresses, this is becoming more and more irrelevant: as far as I understand you, - gcc since 3.0 has a different mangling scheme, which isn't concerned in this PR - gcc up to 2.95 has never generated the cases that your patch addresses - gcc 2.95 is certainly not going to be fixed to generate them any more - gcc 2.95 is slowly dying out. The question thus is: if people are not overly interested in your patch (which is regrettable, but apparently the case), then we can as well close the PR. Since if we don't, we'll ask the same question again in a year, and then people will care even less about 2.95. What's your opinion on this? Thanks Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/ From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> To: carlo@alinoe.com Cc: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:18:18 -0500 Vlad reported a core dump. Nick fixed it with a small patch. You also wrote a significantly larger patch also claiming to fix it. You were asked if you tested on older gcc's to ensure backward compatibility. You said you didn't. The issue of backward compatibility was never resolved to my satisfaction, so I didn't approve it. I also noted that the demanglers are normally maintained by the C++ folks, but apparently you didn't convince them either. However, if you look in libiberty's ChangeLog, you'll see that your patch was eventually applied, over a year ago. So, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. 2002-02-18 Carlo Wood <carlo@gnu.org> PR c++/5390 * cplus-dem.c (demangle_integral_value): Accept multi-digit numbers that do not start with an underscore; This is needed for integer template parameters. This doesn't break anything because multi-digit numbers are never followed by a digit. * testsuite/demangle-expected: Corrected all mangled test cases with multi-digit template parameters: g++ 2.95.x does not generate underscores around these parameters. From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:14:20 +0100 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:26:50AM -0000, bangerth@dealii.org wrote: > Synopsis: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. > > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > State-Changed-By: bangerth > State-Changed-When: Fri Mar 7 02:26:50 2003 > State-Changed-Why: > Carlo, this report has been sitting idly for a year now. > What is the present state? Is it still unsolved, or did > your patch go in? > > Thanks > Wolfgang > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=5390 I don't have 2.95.4 and don't even know if there is a CVS branch for it. The file libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected still exists in version 3.3, and contains some broken mangled names (the way 2.95.x doesn't mangle them): my patch was not applied to 'libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected' but it seems to have been partly applied, or someone did double work (and a bad job). c++filt of 3.3 does not demangle the correct mangled names (at least the ones I tried) - while it does demangle the old (wrong) mangled names. By looking at libiberty/cplus-dem.c it seems that the patch was at least party applied, but someone made changes that broke it, or they ignored failing hunks. As it is, libiberty/cplus-dem.c cannot demangle all the names as produced by 2.95.x. Because in the past my patches have been totally ignored too often, I did put this one in the bugs database, so it wouldn't get lost... But later I got so much demotivated that I unsubbed from all gcc mailinglists and stopped caring about gcc. Therefore I must say now: I am sorry, but I can't bother to put more time into this one and fix it AGAIN - for the current cplus-dem.c. Perhaps you manage to manually fix the current cplus-dem.c by looking at the old patch and figuring out what was applied and what was not applied. Keep in mind that it is not possible, nor interesting to keep backwards compatibility with the mangled names as mangled by pre-2.95.x (the ones with a '-' in front of it in my testsuite/demangle-expected patch) in libiberty/testsuite/demangle-expected: if you do that then you garanteed have a broken demangler for the way 2.95.x mangles these names. My patch (for cplus-dem.c) was the best possible fix imho. -- Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:14:43 +0100 On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:03:32AM -0600, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > As time progresses, this is becoming more and more irrelevant: as far > as I understand you, > - gcc since 3.0 has a different mangling scheme, which isn't concerned in > this PR > - gcc up to 2.95 has never generated the cases that your patch addresses It does. That is the whole point: 2.95 generates mangled names that are not supported, while the mangled names produces by older version ARE supported. > - gcc 2.95 is certainly not going to be fixed to generate them any more > - gcc 2.95 is slowly dying out. > > The question thus is: if people are not overly interested in your patch > (which is regrettable, but apparently the case), then we can as well close > the PR. Since if we don't, we'll ask the same question again in a year, > and then people will care even less about 2.95. > > What's your opinion on this? The reason I filed the PR was because my library generated a mangled name that made libiberty core. As a library developer I *have* to support ALL versions of gcc(/libiberty) and was able to think of a workaround (somehow make sure that the template parameter constant where always < 10). It is never urgent for to have something fixed: I have to work with the current version (2.95.1 and up, all of them) anyway. So, as far as I am concerned you can close this PR. (Personally, I'd fix it though if I were you - but I am a perfectionist). -- Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:03:05 -0600 (CST) > > - gcc up to 2.95 has never generated the cases that your patch addresses > > It does. That is the whole point: 2.95 generates mangled names that are > not supported, while the mangled names produces by older version ARE > supported. OK, thanks for the clarifications. I wasn't aware of this ABI change back then. > > The question thus is: if people are not overly interested in your patch > > (which is regrettable, but apparently the case), then we can as well close > > the PR. Since if we don't, we'll ask the same question again in a year, > > and then people will care even less about 2.95. > > > > What's your opinion on this? > > The reason I filed the PR was because my library generated a mangled > name that made libiberty core. As a library developer I *have* to > support ALL versions of gcc(/libiberty) and was able to think of > a workaround (somehow make sure that the template parameter constant > where always < 10). It is never urgent for to have something fixed: > I have to work with the current version (2.95.1 and up, all of them) > anyway. I understand these concerns. We build our library by 3 or 4 different compilers and a total of 10 different versions or so :-( > So, as far as I am concerned you can close this PR. Does this still hold given DJ's mail? > (Personally, I'd fix it though if I were you - but I am a perfectionist). I might if I could. I have no knowledge of gcc, libiberty, etc at all. My place is gnats, beyond that I can only try to get patch creators and reviewers into contact -- usually a fruitless endeavor... W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/ From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dj@redhat.com Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 03:23:41 +0100 --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:03:05PM -0600, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > So, as far as I am concerned you can close this PR. > > Does this still hold given DJ's mail? > > > (Personally, I'd fix it though if I were you - but I am a perfectionist). > > I might if I could. I have no knowledge of gcc, libiberty, etc at all. My > place is gnats, beyond that I can only try to get patch creators and > reviewers into contact -- usually a fruitless endeavor... I tested it again and, as I've written to DJ in private, it seems that my patch WAS applied more or less to gcc version 3.1. However, the way it is now is that it doesn't work for negative template integrals less than -9. For example: /usr/src/gcc/gcc-cvs-3.3/libiberty>echo 'main(int argc, char* argv[]) { printf("%s\n", cplus_demangle(argv[1], 3)); }' > main.c /usr/src/gcc/gcc-cvs-3.3/libiberty>gcc -I../include cplus-dem.c safe-ctype.c xmalloc.c xexit.c xstrdup.c cp-demangle.c dyn-string.c main.c /usr/src/gcc/gcc-cvs-3.3/libiberty>a.out X__FGt3Bar1im10i X(Bar<-1>, , int) I corrected cplus-dem.c again to completely reflect my original patch after which I get correctly: /usr/src/gcc/gcc-cvs-3.3/libiberty>a.out X__FGt3Bar1im10i X(Bar<-10>, int) The new diff is attached. Log entry: 2003-03-10 Carlo Wood <carlo@gnu.org> * cplus-dem.c (demangle_integral_value): Correction to reflect patch of 2002-01-10 in order to also make negative multi-digits without leading underscore work. -- Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dem3.diff" Index: cplus-dem.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/gcc/gcc/libiberty/cplus-dem.c,v retrieving revision 1.89.4.1 diff -u -d -p -r1.89.4.1 cplus-dem.c --- cplus-dem.c 4 Mar 2003 02:57:48 -0000 1.89.4.1 +++ cplus-dem.c 11 Mar 2003 02:07:23 -0000 @@ -1797,31 +1797,34 @@ demangle_integral_value (work, mangled, success = 0; - /* Negative numbers are indicated with a leading `m'. */ - if (**mangled == 'm') - { - string_appendn (s, "-", 1); - (*mangled)++; - } - else if (mangled[0][0] == '_' && mangled[0][1] == 'm') - { - /* Since consume_count_with_underscores does not handle the - `m'-prefix we must do it here, using consume_count and - adjusting underscores: we have to consume the underscore - matching the prepended one. */ - multidigit_without_leading_underscore = 1; - string_appendn (s, "-", 1); - (*mangled) += 2; - } - else if (**mangled == '_') - { - /* Do not consume a following underscore; - multidigit_without_leading_underscore will consume what should be - consumed. */ - leave_following_underscore = 1; + if (**mangled == '_') + { + if (mangled[0][1] == 'm') + { + /* Since consume_count_with_underscores does not handle the + `m'-prefix we must do it here, using consume_count and + adjusting underscores: we have to consume the underscore + matching the prepended one. */ + multidigit_without_leading_underscore = 1; + string_appendn (s, "-", 1); + (*mangled) += 2; + } + else + { + /* Do not consume a following underscore; + consume_count_with_underscores will consume what + should be consumed. */ + leave_following_underscore = 1; + } } else { + /* Negative numbers are indicated with a leading `m'. */ + if (**mangled == 'm') + { + string_appendn (s, "-", 1); + (*mangled)++; + } /* Since consume_count_with_underscores does not handle multi-digit numbers that do not start with an underscore, and this number can be an integer template parameter, @@ -1862,7 +1865,7 @@ demangle_integral_value (work, mangled, /* All is well. */ success = 1; } - } + } return success; } --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf-- From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> To: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> Cc: carlo@alinoe.com, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org> Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:03:55 -0600 (CST) Carlo, DJ, many thanks for working this out in a professional manner! I assume I can close the report now, right? Thanks Wolfgang On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > 2003-03-10 Carlo Wood <carlo@gnu.org> > > > > * cplus-dem.c (demangle_integral_value): Correction to reflect > > patch of 2002-01-10 in order to also make negative multi-digits > > without leading underscore work. > > Approved and applied. Thanks! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/ From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> To: carlo@alinoe.com Cc: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/5390: Libiberty fails to demangle multi-digit template parameters. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:55:47 -0500 > 2003-03-10 Carlo Wood <carlo@gnu.org> > > * cplus-dem.c (demangle_integral_value): Correction to reflect > patch of 2002-01-10 in order to also make negative multi-digits > without leading underscore work. Approved and applied. Thanks! From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> Cc: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>, carlo@alinoe.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: other/5390: What about this PR? Date: 02 May 2003 11:18:25 -0700 On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 11:13, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > On Fri, 2 May 2003, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > > > > I think it might as well be applied to the 3.3 branch, > > > but if not - then this PR can be closed: its status > > > still sits at 'feedback'. > > > > At this point, it's not up to me. If the 3.3 branch folks want to > > apply the patch, it's OK with me. > > So this is Mark's call. > > If it's not going into 3.3, please queue it for 3.3.1. Too late for 3.3, but OK for 3.3.1. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> CodeSourcery, LLC From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> To: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> Cc: carlo@alinoe.com, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>, <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, <mark@codesourcery.com> Subject: Re: other/5390: What about this PR? Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:13:57 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 2 May 2003, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > I think it might as well be applied to the 3.3 branch, > > but if not - then this PR can be closed: its status > > still sits at 'feedback'. > > At this point, it's not up to me. If the 3.3 branch folks want to > apply the patch, it's OK with me. So this is Mark's call. If it's not going into 3.3, please queue it for 3.3.1. W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/ From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> To: carlo@alinoe.com Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, bangerth@ices.utexas.edu Subject: Re: other/5390: What about this PR? Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:16:07 -0400 > I think it might as well be applied to the 3.3 branch, > but if not - then this PR can be closed: its status > still sits at 'feedback'. At this point, it's not up to me. If the 3.3 branch folks want to apply the patch, it's OK with me. From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu, dj@redhat.com Subject: other/5390: What about this PR? Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 14:53:05 +0200 Just now I did a 'cvs diff' on the gcc-3.3 branch and found a modified file: cplus-dem.c This diff turned out to be related to PR other/5390 It turns out that my patch (made for 3.3 at the time) was applied to 3.4 only. I think it might as well be applied to the 3.3 branch, but if not - then this PR can be closed: its status still sits at 'feedback'. -- Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> DJ, do you think that the patch for this PR that was applied to mainline can now be applied to 3.3 branch? Thanks, Dara This should not be in waiting. This has been fixed on the mainline. I don't think it's worth trying to sort this out for the 3.3 branch, so I have closed the PR. |