This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Get rid of underscore.c
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:48:25 -0400, Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2002 19:42:36 +0100, Nick Clifton <email@example.com> 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
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
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.