This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Get rid of underscore.c

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:48:25 -0400, Andrew Cagney <> wrote:

>> On 12 Sep 2002 19:42:36 +0100, Nick Clifton <> 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?

Which binutils change?  Removing c++filt from binutils?  I don't think it
was discussed before the current thread, which is being sent to the
binutils list.

I added c++filt to gcc on 1995-05-04.  I don't remember what discussion
preceded this change.

>> Why should binutils have its own demangler?
> How about GCC bundle in a program called g++filt while binutils bundle
> c++filt.

I honestly don't see a reason for binutils to build c++filt.  Do you?  I'm
not being sarcastic.

If you really want to build it in binutils, I suppose we can work something
out, just please don't remove it from gcc.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]